1920-04-13

Mr. GUTHRIE:: That covers the case of a man who applies to register after he has been registered.


Mr. COPP:: But only in the same electoral district. It seems to imply that he could apply in another election district.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is any conflict. However, I will make a note of that.


Mr. POWER:: If a man resides six months in one part of a province and six months in another, who is to decide where his actual residence is?


Hugh Guthrie: The statute provides that he shall have resided in the electoral district for two months last preceding election day..


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What about the man who has resided two months last preceding election day in a certain part of an electoral district and whose home is somewhere else?


Hugh Guthrie: His residence will be taken as where he last resided. It is residence here, not domicile.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Why not domicile?
RESOLUTION OF THANKS BY THE BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS READ BY tt xt ivm UOWFJ.L.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) : I beg to lay upon the Table a copy of resolution of the British House of Commons thanking the troops of the Dominions overseas for their services during the war. While the resolution was passed at the last session of the British House of Commons it has only just come to hand, and as that part of it relating to the Dominion is brief I might read it for the purpose of putting it on record:
That the thanks of this hoard be accorded to the gallant troops from the Dominions overseas, from India, and from the colonies and protectorates, for the promptitude with which they responded to the call of justice and freedom, and for the noble part that they have played, in conjunction with their comrades of the British Islands, in securing the triumph of right over wrong.



ADMIRAL JELLICOE'S REPORT TO AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. MACKENZIE KING:: I ask the Minister of Naval Service if by any chance the

Government has copies, which might be available to members of this House, of the [DOT] report of Lord Jellicoe to the Governments of Australia and New Zealand respecting naval matters in those countries; if not, will copies of such reports be procured.


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine):: I regret to inform the leader of the Opposition that the Government is not in possession of Lord Jellicoe's reports either to the Government of New Zealand or that of Australia, on naval matters, but I will confer with the Acting Premier and see if it is possible to get copies for the hon. gentleman.



PAPEE TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of correspondence, Orders in Council, etc., respecting the apportionment of expenses of the League of Nations and the payment of the sum of $64,043.15 as Canada's share of such expense.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 12 consideration in Committee of Bill No. 12, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.-Hon. Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 87-effect of corrupt practices, disqualification, etc.
Mr. FIELDING:: Is the period of disqualification here the same as in the present law?


Hugh Guthrie: In the Act at present in force the disqualification period is eight years. Before that law was enacted the disqualification period was seven years. I think it well to fix the period at seven years and make all the provisions of our law conform. I therefore move that the word "eight" be struck out and the word "seven" inserted.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 88-Candidates not convicted unless corrupt practice done by himself, agent, or with his knowledge-Proviso.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Does this Bill give any definition of "other agent?"


Hugh Guthrie: There is no definition of agent for the purposes of this section. What is done has to be done with the candidate's knowledge. It is knowledge of the candidate which practically constitutes agency under the section. The old section, which was number 277, contained a provision similar to this, namely:

A candidate shall not he liable, nor shall his election be voided, for any unlawful act under the two sections next preceding committed by his agent other than his official agent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 89-Election not avoided unless illegal practices by candidate, agent, etc.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section and the three or four preceding sections are very much in the nature of new legislation, and they all seem to be framed with the object of protecting the candidate against extreme or unnecessary actions. Has the minister any explanation to give to the House.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no special information to give. The sections are, I think, a little more Skillfully drawn than the former section in regard to the effect of an act by agents. The idea is to draw a distinction between acts of the candidate, acts of the official agent, and acts of some other person who legally becomes an agent through taking part in an eleotion with the knowledge of the candidate. The old section did not make that distinction, but just provided, that a candidate should not be liable nor should his eleotion be voided for any unlawful act under the preceding two sections-which were the sections dealing with illegal and corrupt practices- committed by his agent other than his official agent. If an agent not the official agent, acting with the knowledge of the candidate, contravenes the provisions of this Act, a penalty is attached, and the penalties attached by these two or three sections do not interfere with any of the provisions of the Contraverted Elections Act. The election may at the same time be set aside. These sections deal only with the penalties that shall be imposed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 92-Recovery of penalties and forfeitures-Imprisonment for non-payment, etc.
Mr. TRAHAN:: Instead of giving security for costs it would to my mind be more simple to make the plaintiff deposit the fifty dollars in court, and perhaps the amount should be increased to one hundred dollars. Oftentimes actions are dictated not by love of the law but by hate, and such actions should not be encouraged.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know how it is in the province of Quebec where my hon. friend comes from, but in Ontario and, I

think, in all the other provinces the order for security is always satisfied with cash; one can deposit the cash in court instead of giving security. The old section has been in our law for a long time.


Arthur Trahan: The giving of security does not necessarily involve a deposit in cash.


Hugh Guthrie: But it permits it.


Arthur Trahan: Would it not he better to make the deposit compulsory?


Hugh Guthrie: I would prefer to leave . the section as it is.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice in subsection 6 the burden of proof, contrary to the ordinary rules, is shifted to the defendant. If he is charged with having voted where he had no right to vote, the onus is upon him to prove that he was entitled to vote there. In several places throughout this Act there is a departure from the principle that every one accused of an offence is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. Further, there is nothing here about where the venue shall be. I submit that in all these proceedings the venue should be in the county in which the election was held. There should also be some provision for the production as evidence of the list, duly certified by the clerk of the municipality, which should be prima facie' evidence of the fact that the name of the accused was on the list and that he had the right to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: It might be convenient to have all these actions brought in the county in which the cause of action arose. But in our Ontario county courts it is not essential that the actions should be tried in the county in which the cause of action arose. There is, however, a rule of the court that this shall be done wherever possible, and I take it that that rule would apply to an action for recovery under one of the sections of this Act. My hon. friend will notice that the penalty may be the subject of action in a court of competent jurisdiction in the province in which the cause of action arises. If Ontario was the province in question, the court of competent jurisdiction would be a court of the particular county in which the offence was committed, unless the parties did not reside in that county. If the parties resided in another county, there would be another jurisdiction for the trial of that action. I assume that the jurisdiction of the various county and district courts throughout Canada is limited by rules applicable to the
courts of the provinces. As to the burden of proof so far as the right to vote is concerned, I do not think there is any great hardship. The accused knows the facts and he can immediately inform the eourt as to his right to vote, whereas the complainant may have very great difficulty in establishing that fact.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot agree with my hon. friend's law as to the simplicity of the evidence. If a man is charged with having voted when his name is not on the list, the evidence of the existence of his right is in writing, on the list. The judge will not accept secondary evidence; he must produce the best evidence; therefore the list, properly certified by the county clerk, should be produced to prove that his name is on it and that he therefore has the right to vote. As to the venue, cases of this kind sufficiently partake of criminality to justify the affording to the accused of all the protection which is afforded to a criminal. Any person who is charged with a criminal offence must be tried in the county in which he resides and in which the cause of action arose. Why should not that be the ease here?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 93-no privileged excuse from answering questions:
Mr. DEVLIN:: Does that include any knowledge that a lawyer may possess, having received the same in confidence from a client?


Hugh Guthrie: This has been the law for a long time. I should think that the recognized privilege which exists between a lawyer and his client, within the limitations established by law, would still exist. While I should not like to change the language of the section, I unhesitatingly give that as my own view of the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 94-production of election, etc., not required in suits:
Hugh Guthrie: The Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, who has gone over this Bill with a great deal of care, has suggested that in clause 94 and in some other clauses, some of which have already been passed, the words "election papers" should be used to include practically all papers used at an election and that a definition of the term should be inserted in clause 2. For my part I do not quite see the feasibility of the suggestion, but I merely men-

tion it as later on we may in considering clause 2 adopt the suggestion and place a definition of the term "election papers" in that clause. If we do that, clause 94 would require some slight amendment, but in the meantime, I prefer the clause as it is now. It is the same as the old one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 100-advance voting by railway employees, sailors, etc.:
William Stevens Fielding: This is a very long and rather elaborate clause. The aim is one with which we all sympathize, I am sure. It is to provide that a commercial traveller, a railway employee, a sailor, or any other voter who in the ordinary pursuit of his vocation is obliged to be absent at the time of of the election shall not lose his vote, and provision is made whereby he may vote at what is called an advance poll. I want to offer a suggestion to the minister which I think is worthy of his consideration. The purpose of this provision is undoubtedly a good one, but it seems to me the machinery is very elaborate and must be very expensive. Why could not provision be made, as in the case of a joint stock company, for instance, to let the few voters, because they will be few in proportion to the total electorate, who would avail themselves of this provision vote by proxy? There may be a giving away of the secrecy of the vote *by that method, but only to a very small extent indeed. Why could not a sailor or a railway employee who happens to be away empower his brother, or cousin, or sister, or mother, or anybody else, to vote for him? The only objection that can be offered to that is the lack of secrecy, but as a matter of fact nine men out of ten make no secrecy as to how they intend to vote. I think the suggestion is worthy of the minister's consideration. The machinery provided here is elaborate and expensive, and I think the same good end could be served at much less expense by allowing these men to vote by proxy. I need not elaborate the argument, but I would ask the minister to consider whether it is not a proper suggestion.


Hugh Guthrie: I have had one discussion on this matter, and there is one very large body of the people of this country, the railroad people, who do not like the proxy idea. I think the ordinary man looks upon the right to vote as something in the nature of a sacred right, as something which he should not delegate to any third party, but as a right which he should exercise for himself. The only person with whom I have 
discussed this question were the railroan men, and they were very strongly opposed to the idea of voting by proxy. No matter what the cost may be or how great the inconvenience, the men claim the right to vote, and that arrangements should be made, if at all possible, to that end. I can quite see that the suggestion of my hon. friend has this merit, that it would save a great deal of expense to the country, but I think the object to be attained, namely, that all classes of people shall have the' right to exercise their franchise, justifies us in going to a great deal of expense.
I might say that there are some suggested amendments to this clause. I have had suggestions, f6r instance, from the Commercial Travellers' Association, and from various railway brotherhoods in Canada. I do not know whether it would be well to discuss this clause fully to-day. We might or might not, just as the committee sees fit. It is a clause that will have to be amended to some extent.


William Stevens Fielding: We all agree that the secrecy of the vote should be protected, but it is a very practical world we are living in to-day, and nine men out of ten make no secret of how they intend to vote. The man who does make a secret of it is quite the exception, so I do not think the argument as to secrecy should apply at all. I have no doubt that the first impression of the railway men would be that they wanted the right to vote themselves, but I think [DOT]if we had a deputation of the men from the railway service they would admit the reasonableness of this suggestion, and I venture to say that nearly every man in the railway seryice who intends to vote makes no secret of how he is going to vote, but tells his friends that he is going to vote Grit or Tory or Farmer, or for one of the other numerous groups that are springing up.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Will the hon. gentleman say how he knows that a man is going to vote a certain way? A voteT may say all sorts of things before an election that are simply camouflage, and may vote just the opposite way to what he said he was going to vote.


Mr. McMASTER:: Not in Nova Scotia.


William Stevens Fielding: We are not accustomed to that class of voter down my way. I am speaking in all seriousness. I grant that there is some force in the argument that a man has the right to vote himself, but I say that for the object in view

the machinery is too expensive and too elaborate. I am not quarrelling with the expense only, although that is a consideration. To create this elaborate machinery to give a comparatively small number of men the right to vote is like creating a steam engine to run a canoe. There is nothing to justify such expensive machinery for such a simple purpose.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am not much in
sympathy with the idea of voting by proxy. My hon. friend says that he has discussed this matter with the railway brotherhoods and has received communications with respect to it from commercial travellers' associations and other bodies. There is no class which has been pressing for legislation of this kind for a number of years so strongly as the commercial travellers, but I am quite sure that a large number of them will not 'be able to avail themselves of this provision. A large number of commercial travellers go on a two or three weeks' trip. I know, for instance, commer- >
cial travellers in the city of Quebec who leave for the Gaspe coast or the Lake St. John district who would not be able to avail themselves of this provision, becaus^ three days is not sufficient time to allow. If the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) is not accepted, I would ask the minister to provide a longer period than three days, which I do not think is sufficient to give the commercial travellers and the other class who are asking for this legislation the privilege they desire.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I have been requested
many times during the past year to bring before the House at the earliest opportunity the question of voting by mail. This proposition is endorsed by the Commercial Travellers' Association, and no doubt the minister in charge of the Bill has received from them representations in the matter. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), very wisely pointed out that the time provided for in this Act is not adequate, and certainly three days will not afford the commercial travellers of the country sufficient time in which to exercise , the franchise. There can be no doubt in the mind of any hon. gentleman that the Commercial Travellers' Association represents possibly the most intelligent section of the community.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is no body of men who have a better knowledge of the affairs of the country than the commercial travellers, who come in close contact with the 75
people of every constituency from coast to coast. Some hon. gentlemen said " hear, hear" a moment ago by way of comment on my statement that the commercial travellers are among the best informed citizens of the country. However that comment may be interpreted, I repeat the assertion and I will go a step further and say that the commercial travellers are better informed on public matters than any other class of people in the Dominion, without a single exception. This body comprises over 30,000 men, who all take a keen interest in the nation's affairs; and it would be impossible for them to take advantage of the provisions of this Act, worded as it is. I would therefore strongly urge upon the minister the necessity of providing for voting by mail. Many of these travellers leave on extended trips covering a period very often of six months. The commercial travellers cover the Dominion twice in the twelve months and it seems to me that there should be some provision for their accommodation in the matter of voting. But the commercial travellers are not the only citizens whose convenience is involved in this proposition. There are the sailors, who are sometimes away from home for months and months together. Then there are the lumbermen, the most difficult body of men to deal with in any election, and hon. members who have had experience in this direction can bear me out; and another class of men who encounter great obstacles in any attempt to record their votes are the miners. So that for the convenience of this considerable portion of the population-the commercial travellers, the sailors, the lumbermen, and the miners, to say nothing of the railroad men,-I think it is the duty of the Acting Solicitor General very seriously to consider the proposal I made. I quite realize that there will be attendant difficulties in connection with such a provision, but these are no greater than the difficulties that would surround the proposition which is before the House at the present time. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will give due consideration to the representations that have been made to him, through me, and I have no doubt directly, by the commercial travellers.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: In regard to
the observations of the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding), I do not think that hon. gentleman bears in mind the fact that the provisions of the Act applying to a class of men who, in many constituencies in Canada, constitute the majority of the voters. There are several constituencies of which I have personal



knowledge, where some four or five thousand men will be affected by this clause, and to ask that such a large number of men should vote by proxy seems to me to be beyond what any reasonable man would demand in connectidn with the exercise of the franchise. Then, with regard to the complicated machinery that has been set up. the difficulty of carrying out the provisions of this clause, the expense, etc., I think the clause is in reality very similar to the provisions under which the railway employees and commercial travellers were allowed to vote in the last provincial election in Ontario. Boiled down, it means that there shall be in each constituency one advance poll man to be deputy returning officer and poll clerk, and there shall be issuance of certificates by the registrar or the enumerator, as the case may be, to enable these men to vote. I think that any suggestion to the railway employees, to say nothing of all the other men who will be affected, that they should vote by proxy would only be tantamount to saying " We are not going to give you the privilege of exercising the franchise;" because these men will not avail themselves of such a privilege.


Mr. TURGEON:: I would suggest an
amendment to the clause to provide for elections on a specified day, so that men in every calling in life might have an opportunity of exercising the privileges of citizenship. I do not see any sound reason why we should not have the general election fixed by statute to take place on a Monday, say. Every travelling agent is at home, if not every Sunday, at least every second or third Sunday, and if he knew that the election would take place on a certain Monday he would so arrange his itinerary as to be home on the Sunday preceding election day. In the province of New Brunswick we have such a privilege to accommodate sailors and fishermen. Before Confederation a statute provided that elections should always be held on Monday in the constituency of Gloucester, which I have the honour to represent, and which is one of the largest constituencies in the Maritime Provinces. This provision was made to meet the convenience of the fishermen in this constituency, who comprise a very large propor.-tion of the electorate. They generally leave home on Monday, returning on Saturday nights, and the provision is a very convenient one. There is a tendency in New Brunswick to-day to have the general provincial election held on Monday, and I would not be astonished if this suggestion

took the form of legislation before long. If the election were held on Monday every class of citizens, including railway employees, would make preparations in view of the fact, and I have no doubt whatever that the majority of them would be able to exercise the franchise. Railway men could vote* early in the morning and late in the evening. In that way, as suggested by the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne, w*e could dispense with this clause, which will undoubtedly involve a great deal of expenditure, or at least considerably more than would be entailed if the election were held on Monday. I think the committee should weigh well this suggestion, which is an important one.
Mr. J. E, ARMSTRONG: Before this clause is disposed pf II would like the Acting Solicitor General to take into consideration the fact that our inland sailors would be strongly opposed to voting by proxy. Not many days ago a delegation of masters and mates waited upon me in regard to this very subject, and urged the importance of placing before the Acting Solicitor General the need of enacting just stich a clause as is contained in this Bill.
I am also satisfied that the representatives of the railway brotherhoods and the commercial travellers would be strongly opposed to a clause compelling them to vote by proxy.


Mr. DUFF:: I presume the idea of the Acting Solicitor General in moving this clause is to give every elector in Canada a chance to vote. The idea is a good one but I really cannot see how it is going to be carried out successfully. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat spoke about the position of the lake sailors. Well, they would be able to vote in three ways. But, in my opinion, it would be most unfair to allow railway employees and commercial travellers who are away from home to vote, and not provide some means whereby our sailors and fishermen in the Maritime Provinces and British Columbia, who may be away from home for perhaps a week, two weeks, or two months before election day, could exercise the franchise. If some scheme cannot be devised whereby every man in Canada who was away from home might vote, I would say let the old law remain in force and only permit those who are at home on election day to poll their votes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: -Supplementing the remarks I have already made, I desire to

place on Hansard a resolution which I have received from the Commercial Travellers' Association upon this subject. It is very brief and will not take long to read.



THE R6YAL ASSENT.

[Stage Direction]
Sitting suspended for Royal assent to Bills.
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Administrator desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
The Speaker informed the House that His Excellency the Administrator had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal assent to the following Bill:
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending 31st March, 1921.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee on Bill No. 12 respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.-Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the Committee rose to receive the message from His Excellency the Administrator we were considering clause 100. Mr. Pedlow had the floor.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Speaker, when the House was called to order for the purpose of adjourning to the Senate I was about to ask permission to place on Hansard some resolutions I had received from commercial travellers' associations of Canada. The Dominion Commercial Travellers' Association of the City of Montreal passed the following resolution:
This association has been informed that it is the intention of the House to bring a Bill before Parliament making provision for a system of "Votes by Mail." The board of directors of this association are heartily in favour of the proposition, and trust that Parliament will see its way clear to have the system adopted. As you are no doubt aware, there are about 30,000 commercial travellers in Canada, and it is rather hard on these men that they should not have the opportunity of voting simply by reason of the fact that their business necessitates their being , absent from their home town on the day of the poll. These men are represent-75J	'
ing many and varied interests, and the very nature of their work qualifies them to vote intelligently on the matters most affecting the economic welfare of the Dominion.
The Commercial Travellers' Association of Brockville passed this resolution:
This association heartily endorses the proposed legislation to permit commercial travellers to exercise their franchise, both for parliamentary and municipal elections, by mail when unable to vote at their own polling places on election day, and we greatly appreciate your kind interest in our behalf in this matter.
The Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada have sent me from Toronto the following resolution:
It is a matter that has been before the association since 1906, and if the voting-by-mail Bill is passed, it will only be equitable and fair to the commercial traveller and something that he will appreciate very much.
It may seem to the committee that this-is something so radical that it is impossible-of adoption, but let me tell the hon. minister who has charge of this Bill that far from being an impossible proposition, it is in operation in several countries. I understand that in the Argentine Republic voting by mail is quite common, and it is effected somewhat after this manner. Each voter being duly registered carries with him a registration card with his signature and photograph attached, and on polling day all he has to do is to go to the nearest post office, present his registration card, and obtain from the postmaster a ballot, which is enclosed in a registered envelope. Having marked his ballot he forwards it to the constituency in which he wishes to cast his vote.
I have also in my possession a 'specimen ballot used by the University of the City of Dublin for university elections, but these elections are conducted just as strictly as a parliamentary election. I shall be pleased to submit this form to the minister for in-' spection if he so desires.


Mr. MANION:: As a representative of a constituency in which reside some thousands of railway men, I wish to very strongly support the proposal contained in the Bill of providing for advanced ballots. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) will therefore not be surprised at my opposing his suggestion that unless we can get everybody to vote we should do away with these polls. In the last provincial election these advance polls were used in Fort William, and I assume, in the smaller railway centres. The result was satisfactory to those who voted, though I confess that there may not have been so much satisfaction on the.

part of candidates who were members of the old parties. Railway men, whether engineers or firemen, conductors or brakemen, are, perhaps, among the most intelligent of the working classes of this country, and that is a very important reason why this suggestion should be done away with. In these times of unrest-unreasonable unrest in many cases-we should not do anything to interfere with the level-headed. higher class votes which these advance polls will enable to be cast. I very strongly submit, therefore, that the provision with regard to advance polls Temain very much as it is.


Hugh Guthrie: My own view is that the idea of establishing advance polls as outlined in the clause is a very valuable one. Possibly it can be improved; in the meantime this clause had better stand.
Section stands.
On section 101-Act to apply in elections under Canada Temperance Act:


Hugh Guthrie: I move that this clause be amended by striking out in line 13, page 76 of the Bill, the following words: "in the place of and instead of the Acts hereby repealed."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the desire of the committi-e now to take up the schedules?


Hugh Guthrie: I imagine that only six or seven clauses which have been allowed to stand will be the main clauses of contention. Possibly we had better go back to the beginning and take up those which do not offer so much ground for difference of opinion. -


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might take up such schedules as apply to clauses which have already been adopted.


Hugh Guthrie: I am willing that we
<io that. I move that in considering the schedules to the Act, each form be considered separately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. EULER:: When may we expect the amendment that was announced Iby the Minister of the Interior?


Hugh Guthrie: It will be ready when we reach clause 29.
On Schedule 1, Foraa A-writ of election:


Hugh Guthrie: The Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery points out that under section 40 the day for nomination is

fixed and the provision is that the polling shall take place on the fourteenth day thereafter. He seems to fear that some difficulty will arise in fixing the precise day for polling, and he suggests that the day for polling shall, where necessary, also be fixed in the writ and in the proclamation. I think the suggestion rather a good one, and I therefore move that Form A, Schedule 1, be amended by inserting after the word "next," on the fourth line from the last, page 76 of the Bill, the words:
and if a poll become necessary, that the same be held on the	day of	next.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does that not give the returning officer power to fix the election day? If that is the purpose of the amendment, I am opposed to it. Nomination day being fixed by the statute, election day also should be fixed by statute, a certain number of days being allowed to come between. That has always been the practice, and it might be dangerous to depart from the time-honoured custom.


Hugh Guthrie: A great many people m computing the fourteenth day do not know whether to exclude or include the first or last day. That is a difficulty which gives rise to a great many contentions. In order to obviate that difficulty which the chief electoral officer says will arise if we do not fix definite dates, he suggests that in the proclamation and in the writ nomination day shall be fixed and likewise polling day. This is only for greater certainty.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form A as amended agreed to.
On Form B-oath of the returning officer.
Mr. MORPHY:: In the certificate in Form B, the question of who is authorized to administer the oath is involved. This is not stated in clause 23, and the certificate refers to a Justice of the Peace only. It seems to me that a notary public or a commissioner should be authorized to take the oath.


Hugh Guthrie: That is provided in clause 7.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would it not be well to have the schedule conform with the provision of the statute?


Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend Form B by adding after the words "Justice of the Peace" the words "or as the case may be." There are a great number of officials who may administer oaths.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form B, as amended, agreed to.
Form C agreed to.
Form D allowed to stand.
On Form E-appointment of a registrar.
Hugh Guthrie: I move that Form E be amended by striking out the words "Sec. 25" in the first line thereof and substituting therefor the words "Sec. 32."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form E stands.
On Form F-oath of registrar.
Hugh Guthrie: This will have to stand likewise, but there is a mistake which might he corrected now. I move to amend Form F by striking out the words "Alberta, or the Yukon territory (or as the case may be)."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form F stands.
Form G agreed to.
On Form H-oath of deputy returning officer.
Arthur Trahan: In the certificate should not the words "or as the case may be" be added after the words "Justice of the Peace"?


Hugh Guthrie: It will be all right to add it after the words "returning officer" because the returning officer is entitled to administer the oath. I move that Form H be amended by adding at the end thereof after the words "returning officer" the words "or as the case may be."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form H, as amended, agreed to.
Form I agreed to.
On Form J-oath of poll clerk.
Hugh Guthrie: .I move that Form J be amended by adding at the end thereof after the words "deputy returning officer" the words "or as the case may be."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form J, as amended, agreed to.
On Form K-list of voters.
Hugh Guthrie: There has been a mistake in copying this, and I therefore move to amend Form K by striking out all the words after the tabulation in the said form
down to and including the words "he finds necessary."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form K stands.
On Form Kl-registration of voters.
Hugh Guthrie: This will also have to stand, but some changes are necessary. There is a mistake in the second line. The form now reads:
That the undersigned has been appointed registrar to prepare the list ot voters for every polling division.
It should read:
That the undersigned has been appointed registrar to prepare the list of voters for polling division No....


Hugh Guthrie: I desire to also amend
this form by inserting the words " polling
division No	of" after the words
"Registrar forv in the next to the last line of the form.


Mr. CURRIE:: Under the old law the
polling divisions were numbered from No.
1 up, and not by municipalities at all. In a great many places there are no municipalities. In Quebec, for instance, there are parishes.
Amendments stand.
Form stands.
On Form K2-interrogatories to be administered orally, under oath or affirmation, to applicants in person for registration as-voters:	.


Hugh Guthrie: The words at the end
of this form " Sworn before me " and so forth should be struck out. This is not a written oath, but is administered by the registrar in the form of interrogatories, and the fact that it has been taken is entered on the election books. I beg to move accordingly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were not
these words inserted in the form in the old Act after some discussion? I think there was a point raised in that connection, and it WES' thought advisable by Parliament at that time to have that feature of the oath made a part of the schedule.


Hugh Guthrie: This suggesion comes
from the officials of the House of Commons. The Act provides that the oath shall be administered by way of interrogatories, but the form here is usually inserted when a man makes an affidavit and signs it him-

self, and the commissioner or justice of the peace puts on the jurat. With interrogatories there is no necessity for the jurat; the book is the record. When the applicant for a vote appears, he is sworn and answers the questions orally. I do not see any object in retaining these words. My attention was not called to this until the night before last, when the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery pointed out that these words are improperly there, and I think he is right.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I notice among the
questions asked is this:	"Are you in any
respect disqualified to vote at the pending election for this electoral district?" I should like to ask what clauses of the Bill deal specifically with disqualification and whether they have been passed or allowed to stand.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 30 deals with
.disqualification and was allowed to stand.
Amendment stands.
Form stands.
Form K3 stands.
Form K4 stands.
On Form K5-affidavit of registrar:


Hugh Boulton Morphy: This is in the form of
an affidavit and yet is printed without a jurat, which is just the reverse of the forms we were considering a moment ago. Surely the jurat should be added.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I move that at
the end of the form the following words be added:
Signed	
.	Registrar.
Sworn before me this	day of. . . .
A.D	at	
(Signature)	
Justice of the Peace (or as the case may be.) Motion agreed- to.
Form as amended stands.
On Form L-proclamation of the returning officer declaring the time and place fixed for the nomination of candidates, and the day for opening the poll:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 37
stands, and I think this had better stand.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why should not this
proclamation be one of the printed blanks that go out to the officials? It is very hard to get printing done promptly in some parts 
of the country. I can see no objection to including this proclamation in the list of forms given in section 36.
Form stands.
Form M agreed to.
On Form N-Oath of Attestation of the Nomination Paper. (Sec. 40, subsection (8)).


Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend this form by substituting (7) for (8) in the second line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Form 0 agreed to.
Form P agreed to.
On Form Q-Directions to Voters, section 45.
Mr. MOWAT:: The diagram appearing on page 90 differs from the actual ballot paper. I see that the printer has copied it from the old Election Act. The object of the diagram in "S" on page 92, which has a black border on the lefthand side, is that no crosses may be put on that side, which might create a doubt as to which candidates are voted for. In Form Q there is no black border. This I think is a typographical error, and the attention of the printer should be called to the fact that the diagrams in both these forms should be alike.


Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend Form Q by adding a broad, black border to the ballot paper appearing on page 90, so that it may be similar to the ballot paper on page 92.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Form R agreed to.
Form S agreed to.
Form T agreed to.
Form U allowed, to stand.
Form V agreed to.
Form Y agreed to.
On Form Z-Oath that Voter is not Disqualified under the Dominion Elections Act. (Section 58.)
Andrew Ross McMaster: This should not carry if the clause in connection with the disqualification of voters under the provincial franchise stands.


Hugh Guthrie: This is a time-honoured form, but it does not matter whether it

stands or not. Section 58, in which this form was contained, was carried.


[Stage Direction]
Form agreed to.
Form Z No. 1 stands.
Form AA stands.
Form BB stands.
Form OC stands.
On Form DD-Information for Personation. (Section 64, subsection (3)).
Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend this
form by substituting for "subsection (3)" in the first line, "subsection (2)." Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
On Form EE-Information for voting with knowledge of disqualification, non-qualification or incompetency. (Section 30):


Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend the
form by substituting the words "Section 64, subsection 2" for the vrords "Section 30 in the third line.
amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On Form FF-Warrant for arrest of a person charged with personation (Section 64, subsection (5)).


Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend this form by substituting (4) for (5) after the word subsection in the second line. Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
On Form GG-Warrant for arrest af a person charged with voting with knowledge of disqualification, non-qualification or incompetency. (Section 64, subsection (5)).


Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend this form by substituting (4) for (5) after the letters SS, in the third line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Form HH agreed to.
Form JJ agreed to.
On Form KK-statement of the poll after counting the ballots:	-
Hugh Guthrie: There is a mistake in
that form. The words "polled in envelopes" appear there. Under this Act there are no votes polled in envelopes. Therefore those words should be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
On Form LL-certificate to be delivered to candidates, etc.:
Hugh Guthrie: There is a mistake in
this form also. The words " were polled in envelopes and " in the last two lines should be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Forms MM, NN, 00, PP, QQ, RR, agreed
to.
Forms SS, TT, UU and Schedules Two and Three are allowed to stand.
Schedule Four is agreed to.
Section 2 is allowed to stand.
On section 4-notices:
Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for
Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) raised a question about this clause; he thought there should be some more specific form of notice in cases unprovided for. I think if he reads the Act carefully he will conclude that every conceivable case has been provided for.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Did not the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) raise some point?


Hugh Guthrie: He did on a later clause.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The point raised was that the distribution of handbills should not be considered sufficient notice. I still persist in the contention that the distribution of handbills giving notice of an official character should not be considered sufficient.


Hugh Guthrie: The provision has a
great many years of experience behind it. Every conceivable case, so far as I know, has been provided for-definite length ^ of notice and the manner in which the notice shall be given. To meet any case that-we have overlooked a general clause is inserted. That is all there is to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-contributions for political purposes.
Mr, McKENZTE: I notice that the language of section 36 of the old Act is not the same as that of this section. Perhaps the minister will explain the reason for not accepting the old form.
Hugh Guthrie: Section 36 of the old Act rt ac!:
No company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone shall, directly or indirectly, contribute, loan, advance, pay or promise or offer to pay any money or its equivalent to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election, etc.

And subsection 2 provides that:
Every director, shareholder, officer, attorney, or agent, of any company or association violating the provisions of this section, who aids, abets, advises, or takes part in, any such violation shall be punished.
The distinction is almost in, the first line of the section, the present section 10 reading :
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association.
the old section being:
No company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone.
I think the idea of the draftsman has been to make it clear that the section included any companies and associations both incorporated and unincorporated, and that no such company or association, other than one incorporated for political purposes alone, should be entitled to make any contributions to elections, neither should any director, shareholder, officer, attorney or agent of a company be entitled so to contriBute.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: The exception
here made is in favour of a company incorporated for political purposes. It is not necessary, it seems to me, that such an association or company should be incorporated. I presume that the object of incorporation would be publicity, but considerable expense attaches to the act of incorporation. Such an association or company would have to be incorporated by a private Act of Parliament, and if the legislature were not sitr ting when it was desired to secure incorporation great inconvenience would result. As I say, the object apparently is to have it publicly known that such a company or association is in existence, and it seems to me that that object, might be accomplished in a more simple way.
If the words "organized or" were inserted between the word "one" in the second line and the word "incorporated" in the third line the section would read:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one organized or incorporatedand I think that would be sufficient notice to the public of the fact that such company or association exists. It would also do away with the unnecessary expense of incorporating a company or association which would be active probably only once in four or five years. I would suggest the insertion of those words.
I would also suggest that some such provision as this be made:

Whenever a company or association is organized for political purposes, but not incorporated, such company or association shall, before taking any action under this section, file with the Secretary of Stateor any other official that the minister would prefer-
-a memorandum giving the name and address of such company or association and the officers thereof, and the territory in which such company or association shall operate.
I think that amendment would not only simplify the working of the Act, but it would also simplify the operation of such company or association.
While I am on my feet I may as well make some further suggestions that occur to me in regard to this section. Subsection 1 prohibits the payment of any money "in aid of any political party, committee, or association," but so far as I can see the Bill does not contain any provision for the enforcement of that prohibition; there is only a clause for enforcing the prohibition against the giving of funds to a candidate or his agent. Supposing that a man or a company or association wishes to contribute $1,000 or $10,000 to the general political fund of a party, there is nothing in this Bill, so far as I can see, to prevent it.


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing to prevent an individual contributing to a fund for party purposes, and' there never has been.	[DOT]


Levi Thomson: The Bill contains ample provisions to enforce penalties so far as contributions to the funds of a candidate are concerned, but so far as I can see there is nothing to compel publicity of contributions to the funds of a political party, and that is where the greatest danger comes in.
I presume that this clause was inserted primarily to prevent contributions by big incorporated companies-strong financial institutions-that might be able to improperly influence elections-and we all know the people generally do think such corporations improperly influence elections whether they actually do or not. It is very much more important that we should provide machinery to prevent this greater evil of contributions to party funds by large incorporated companies, and if we do not take steps to this end I am afraid the people will think that we are not really trying to overcome the evil.
I would like to>
make another suggestion in regard to this section. It would be well to have a further provision that any such company or association making contributions permitted by this clause shall submit

a full report thereof to the Chief Electoral Officer -within say fifteen days after the election, stating the amount of all such contributions and to whom given. Upon receipt of such statement it would be well for the Chief Electoral Officer to have a copy thereof published in the Canada Gazette and possibly in some daily newspaper. Publicity is the main thing that we are after. I do not see that much is to be gained by forbidding contributions from companies, because any such provision could readily be evaded. I do not object to the section, but I want to see it made more effective; I want to see the exceptions which we set forth here made more easily carried out. Instead of insisting upon the incorporation of every little association which wants to contribute toward the election expenses of some candidate, we should permit them to organize upon giving proper notice of such organization. Then we want publicity, and we want some machinery by which we can enforce every provision forbidding contributions from companies to the campaign funds of any party or any association.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The clause under discussion is possibly one of the most important clauses of this Bill. Most representative institutions are regarded with a certain amount of suspicion by the rank and file of the people. One of the reasons why Parliament has lost to a certain degree the influence and the importance which it should have in this country is because there is a feeling abroad which, I believe, is largely unfounded, that the members of this House have been elected by funds supplied by friends of theirs; that the large interests have had a great deal to do with electing members. If we wish to enjoy the prestige and the influence and the honour which should belong to members of this House, we must see that so far as legislation can so provide, such a condition as that shall not exist in future. I do not think that we are going to get away from it by saying that no unorganized association or no incorporated organization other than an organization created for political purposes only shall have the right to subscribe to campaign funds. Contributions to political funds are necessary; we cannot get rid of them. In certain constituencies which are very large or very populous, election expenses are incurred which candidates of moderate means cannot bear, and in such ridings it is only fair that people who have the same views as the candidate whom they
wish to support should be allowed to contribute to his election fund. I have drafted a resolution looking to the elimination of what I think may be rightly regarded as an abuse. It has two objects in view. It provides, first, that no association or company, incorporated or unincorporated, shall have the right to subscribe to a campaign fund; second, that subscriptions to campaign funds, whether general party funds or funds for individuals, shall emanate only from individuals, be of their own money, and be limited to a certain sum, which, for the purpose of argument, I shall put at $10,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The minister smiles, but he may find some one who, charmed by his eloquence, is prepared to put $10,000 into his campaign fund if he be a candidate in the next election. My resolution provides also that there shall be full and complete publicity as respects these campaign funds, so that the public will know just who has put up the money for the election of candidates. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Fournier, that section 10 be struck out, and that the following be substituted therefor:
(1)	No incorporated or unincorporated company or association, nor any firm, shall directly or indirectly contribute, loan, advance, pay or promise, or offer to pay, any money or its equivalent to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election, or to, or for, or in aid of any political party, committee, or association, or to, or for, or in furtherance of, any political purpose whatever, or for the indemnification or reimbursement of any person for money so used1.
(2)	Individuals may subscribe to funds created for the purpose of meeting- the legitimate expenses of individual candidates, or the candidates in general, of any political party, subject to the following restrictions:
(a)	No such subscription may exceed- the sum of ten thousand dollars and must be of the personal money of the subscriber.
(b)	The candidate, or the person acting for such candidate, or the person acting for any political -party receiving such subscription, must acknowledge receipt of the same in writing, and within two weeks -of the same being received by him must publish the full name and address of the subscriber, and the amount subscribed by him, and whether the subscription is generally for the funds of any political party or for any special candidatae in the following manner:
(1)	If the subscription is received by any one acting for any political party, in the Canada Gazette and in a daily newspaper published in the ^capital of the province where said subscriber resides.
(2)	If the subscription is received by any candidate, or by any person acting for him, in the Canada Gazette and in a newspaper published- in the constituency in which the said candidate is a candidate.

(3') Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section, or is an accessory to any violation thereof, is guilty of an indictable offence and punishable as in this Act provided.
I admit that this resolution may be somewhat crude and may require some burnishing up, but I believe that legislation should be passed along these lines so that there may be a removal of the feeling which is widespread throughout the country that vast secret funds are subscribed for the benefit of .political parties and in connection with which consideration is expected after the election.


Mr. GOULD:: I should like to add a few observations to those made by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I was pleased to listen to ihis remarks, and I am almost prepared to hazard the opinion that he got the idea as a result of a visit he made to the West last Fall where he saw in operation the very plan he now proposes. I listened the other night to the minister (Mr. Guthrie) when he made, the declaration that he wished to see politics purified.
I believe he 'was absolutely sincere in making that statement and I am going to give him credit for sincerity. I want to state in this House that the principal reason why this plan was put into operation is that the people in the West came to believe, as the hon. member for Brome suggested, that large corporations and financial institutions had in the past-and I think no one will deny that-subscribed large amounts of money for the purpose of campaign funds which were used in practically every electoral district in Canada. The people said: We shall have no more of this; we shall pay the expenses of a candidate ourselves; rubber stamps have been sent in from other districts without the people's consent when fifteen or twenty men can go into a corner and nominate a candidate, and then weeks before the convention is called we are told that Tom Smith or John Jones is the candidate. The people are sick and tired of that sort of thing, and when such men are elected and come to Parliament, the people say: What right have we to call such and such an individual our candidate; we have none whatever. They also say: If we subscribe our small amounts-not the $10,000 to which the hon. gentleman referred, but their fifty cents and their dollar bills or their ten dollar bills then we shall have a legal right to call the candidate ours. That is purity of politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Oliver Robert Gould: That is initiative on the part of the people and that is the big thing . that is coming into the political life of this country. The plan works out well in practice, and there is no desire for graft on the part of these people who can give their one dollar or two dollars or five dollars for the purpose of calling a candidate theirs, a right that was denied them in the past. I approve the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Brome in his amendment.


Mr. BEST:: I agree with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) that it is the desire of every 'hon. member on either side of the House to endeavour to make elections as clean as possible, and I think that is our duty. But I cannot see, for the life of me, how it is legal for one man to subscribe and not another. If the president of a large concern wishes to give one thousand dollars or five thousand dollars, he can collect that from the other members of the concern and hand the money out as his own. If there is one thing that is worse than another as regards collections for election campaign funds, it is this-in several parts of the Dominion we have men going to every farm where they can get a dollar, from six months to a year and probably even two years before an election is expected to take place. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) says that we do not know who is to be the candidate, but a candidate will be selected. Is it fair or reasonable to go to the electors of this Dominion and ask them to subscribe money to assist a candidate to be elected when they do not know who is going to be brought out as a candidate? In western Canada, I am told on good authority that men now go from farmer to farmer asking them to subscribe so much when they do not know who the candidate is going to be. If some one is nominated, he may be dead before the election takes place. That is very unfair.	,


Mr. PROULX:: They are not obliged to give.


John Best: No. but they are told that this money is for election purposes. Why should a man give a contribution when he does not know who the candidate is going to be and when the latter may be some one to whom the man may be opposed?
I believe in clean elections; but my opinion is 'that every man should pay his own election expenses, and that a proper salary should be paid to every man in the Dominion of Canada whether he be a member of

Parliament, a civil servant, or even a judge, so that he may be able to pay his way, without having men going to the electors and asking for fifty cents here and ,a dollar there. I have been told that elections have taken place in Western Canada for which the printing alone has cost $4,000.


Oliver Robert Gould: Will the hon. member mention one of those districts? *


John Best: I am told that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) said that it cost him $4,000 for printing alone'.


Oliver Robert Gould: I will ask for the hon. member's authority.


John Best: most all my life, including five elections for this House. I was not always successful, but I can tell my friends of the United Farmers of Ontario that we did not spend thousands of dollars. We ran the elections economically, and we had clean, honest, upright elections. I think there is no more vicious kind of corruption than to have a man going around the country collecting one, two, three, four or five dollars and trying to buy men's votes. Let us be men; let us be honest; let us deal with this question in a reasonable way; let us fix a limit to the amount a candidate can spend in any riding, and let us prevent other persons from contributing in any way whatsoever. If we do that we may hope to have clean and honest elections. Just imagine two or three of the prominent people of a municipality going around soliciting funds for whatever amounts they can get, one, two, three, four or five dollars, and I do not suppose even five hundred dollars would be refused. I fully sympathize with the farmer. I have been fighting his battles for twenty-eight years and with some success. I was fighting his battles long before the United Farmers of Ontario ever thought of fighting them, but I must say, as a farmer myself, I am ashamed of some of the methods that have been adopted by some of the farmers' organizations. I wish to repeat that a limit should be placed on the amount that can be spent by a candidate in any riding, and I would make that limit very low and debar any contributions whatsoever from any individual, corporation, or society.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am not aware that any very strong arguments have been advanced against the principle of small subscriptions and the interest they create throughout the country. The virtuous attitude that has been taken by some hon. gentlemen that they have not had this, that, or the other seems to me rather Puritanical. My hon. friend (Mr. Best) says that he has been credibly informed, that he has good authority for his statements, and so on, but he could not have better authority than myself as it was I who had all the experience out there in the West, and I am prepared to tell him what it was. His statement about spending $4,000 for printing is ridiculous, just as ridiculous as his statement that my campaign expenses were $12,000. I have here an audited statement giving my expenses in detail.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Oliver Robert Gould: It is rather lengthy. It
shows that the sum of $6,677 was collected, and quite a large proportion of that is still in our treasury. We spent over $2,000 in disassociating our political party from the Grain Growers' Association last summer. You can see that the campaign expenses therefore amounted to something less than $4,000; in fact it was nearer $3,000.


William Cameron Edwards: How much for incidentals?


Oliver Robert Gould: It is all itemized here. The point I wish to make is this: the people of this country want publicity with regard to campaign funds-something they have never had before. We recognize that, and published a statement in detail.


John Best: How does the hon. member justify his' statement that nobody except himself knows what his election expenses were? Does he mean to say that I and other people have been making false statements about his expenses? I think his statement is unfair, and that the Puritan is on the other side. I published my expenses and I think my hon. friends here did too.


Oliver Robert Gould: I understood the hon. member to say that $12,000 had been expended in an electoral district in the West. Now I am the only one member who has been elected on this platform in the West, and if the hon. gentleman was referring to the compaign expenses of any candidate in the West he must have been referring to me, and I repudiate his statement about my election expenses.


John Best: I did not make the statement that the hon. member's expenses were $12,000. What I said was that I had been informed-the hon. member made the statement himself within the walls of this House -that his expenses for printing were $4,000.
I said I supposed that would be more than one-third of the total expenses, which would make his total expenses $12,000 at least.
I did not say that $12,000 had been spent.


Oliver Robert Gould: It is a nice distinction. I . want to repudiate the statement that I said it cost me $4,000 for printing. I did not make any such statement in this House, and you cannot find any record of it. I challenge my hon. friend to produce the proof.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Is this true? An extract
was handed to me to-day from the Regina Leader of January 2, 1920, showing the expenses of my hon. friend's election in As-siniboia divided under the heads of Organi-

nation and Campaign. It shows that $5,973.40 was disbursed. Is that correct? While I am on my feet, I may as well give the details. My hon. friend in conducting his campaign did not believe in giving particulars of his expenses, as is provided for in the schedule which he supported this afternoon. For instance, he gives under the head of Printing the amount of $457.10. " Sundries "-a very indefinite term in an election-$743.55; "Gould," whoever that is, $50; " Smith," another fine name in an election, $167; " General," another very gen-eial expression covering a multitude of sins, $361; "Gould," $360; "Smith," whoever he is, $331. And then we come to that little word " sundries " again, $775.84. Not a word is said as to how that money was spent. But in addition to that we come across this interesting item:	" Petty Account;" which is not very petty, however, for it involves a sum amounting to $873.


Oliver Robert Gould: Let me inform the hon.
gentleman that what he is reading from is not our statement.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS-SECOND READINGS.
Bill No. 51, an Act respecting the Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 52, an Act to incorporate the Western Canadian Union Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists.:-Mr. Manion, for Mr. Mackie (Edmonton).



FISH INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, Bill No. 50, to amend the Fish Inspection Act was read a second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee consideration of Bill No. 12 respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee rose at six o'clock we had commenced the consideration of the contentious clauses of the Bill, and were discussing clause 10, to which an amendment had been moved
by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master).


Oliver Robert Gould: When the committee rose I was in the act of answering a question which had been asked me.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: If the hon. member will pardon me, I had not concluded my remarks when the committee rose.


Georges Henri Boivin: As I understand it, at six o'clock the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) had the floor and the hon. member for Assiniboia had risen to correct-some statement made by the former. If the hon. gentleman has finished that correction, the hon. member for Parkdale has the floor.


Oliver Robert Gould: I had not completed my
statement, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: You mean your correction.


Oliver Robert Gould: Very well,'my correction. I wish to state that the figures quoted by the hon. gentleman had nothing whatever to do with my statement of campaign expenses. I take it the hon. member presumed that what he was giving was a financial statement regarding my political expenses. Now that I have declared that it was not, I hope the hon. gentleman will accept my explanation, which takes the "thunder" out of what he has said.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I readily aocept my hon. friend's explanation-not that I think it will take the "thunder" from my remarks; I had not the slightest intention of introducing anything of a thunderous character into my remarks; I spoke more in a spirit of sweet reasonableness. I was endeavouring to show my hon. friend and his associates how wrong they might prove through want of knowledge of devious ways. While I accept my hon. friend's explanation that the statement I read was not his, all I can say is that at that time I had not seen the newspaper quoted from, the Regina Leader; the statement from it was handed to me by some one else. Since the recess a copy of the newspaper itself has been placed in my hands, and I find that tbe-statement from which I quoted is set forth in a letter signed by no less a person than "A Disgusted Grain Grower." While accepting my hon. friend's correction, I cannot help thinking that some statement such as I read must have been given out, even if it was amended afterwards by my hon. friend or his agent.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The letter is-


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the hon. gentleman reads the letter will he please explain to the committee how it relates to the clause and the amendment under discussion.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: diverting discussion not so much because I had anything to say, but on account of the remarks of my hon. friend himself.
Now, if my hon. friend will consider his attitude towards his own party-if it is a party-and the other parties, he cannot help but admit that he believes he belongs now' to an organization which is far and aw'ay superior to the others, the wicked political parties which have hitherto existed in this country-a party which is better morally and mentally and which, in a word, represents a clean-up of our politics. With an honest and candid man like my hon. friend, it is perfectly natural that when he gets on his feet he says what he thinks, and that is what he says to-day, the effect of his remarks being: We are going to show the country a new system of political finance, we are going to get fifty-cent subscriptions from all the people, and we are not going to accept large sums from corporations.
I am surprised to see that position taken to-day, because I remember, when, a week ago, this Bill was first in Committee, a nervousness manifested itself in the occupants of the seats opposite to me in regard to this clause. Apparently at that time my hon. friends felt that here was a weapon forged by their political enemies to destroy their activities. The clause was allowed to stand at that time, but I am convinced that my hon. friends then had the idea that they would oppose the clause, and I am fortified in that conviction by a statement made in the adjoining province of Alberta,-which I suppose has the same kind of organizations as are now trying to increase the following of my hon. friends; I presume my hon. friends will admit that this is their purpose. The statement I refer to is by Mr. P. P. Woodbridge, one time 'Secretary of the United Farmers of Alberta and still a member of that organization and of the United Grain Growers, and is contained in an interview in the Calgary Herald, as follows:
He does not by any means hold the same views as Mr. H. W. Woods-
Mr. Woods, I understand, is the President of the Alberta Association.
-regarding clause 10 of the new Dominion Franchise Act, which has of late attracted so much attention.
" Few who stop to think for a moment, or who are not too blindly prejudiced to wish to see for themselves," he remarked in the course of an interview with the Calgary Herald, " can fail to arrive at the conclusion that the clause in question is eminently fair and a step in the right direction towards true democracy and
control of the people's own affairs by the people themselves."
So, evidently, Mr. Woods, representing the United Farmers of Alberta, had begun to protest there, as a piece of propaganda, against the passing of this section. But I was glad to see that the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark), who is associated with my hon. friend (Mr. Gould), when speaking in Toronto on Saturday last took a different ground, and apparently he has won over the others to his way of thinking. I think he was wise in coming to that conclusion, and I think they are wise in following his advice, because they would be doing a very dangerous thing to protest against a provision which they themselves had incorporated in their own platform.
Well, Mr. Woodbridge has some other interesting things to say. He continues:
The tendency of the United Farmers of Alberta under the spell of certain of its leaders has been to centralize all power of control over all- phases of the farmers' movement in this province into the hands of two or three men.
I leave it to my hon. friends to name the gentleman to whom Mr. Woodbridge refers -and I wonder whether the same sort of thing occurs in other provinces. I quote further:
The enforcement of this clause in the Franchise Act means that these men would be forced to separate themselves from the control and direction of the association proper or from that of its political branch. All their careful preparation and inspired eloquence which was so recently used to bring these two organizations under one control would be wasted.
The fact is, that under the influence of these leaders the organized farmers have in recent years adopted into their own organization one by one most of those practices which have encouraged the growth of the very evils and abuses which they so condemn amongst others. In this case their leaders are hoisted by their own petard, and that which will help to prevent the autocratic control of elections among their so-called enemies will also force a wider distribution of the responsibility in their own organization. It will serve to force a greater degree of local autonomy among the people themselves, and it will compel a more democratic alignment and division of the absolutely autocratic power at present exercised . by those leaders.
Well, I would not have dared to use such language as that, but when it comes from a gentleman who is ex-secretary and still a member, of the United Farmers of Alberta, I think it is proper that it should be made known not only to the province of Alberta but throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. The point I am making-and I hope my hon. friends will take it good-naturedly-is that if the system.

under which they are now working, whether a system of individual subscriptions of fifty cents as pleaded for by the hon. member (Mr. Gould) or any other of the kind, is a financial scheme by which they as belonging almost exclusively to one class of labour or of occupation in the country raise campaign funds, then Ahat is a device which is a danger to the other classes of the community. I think that the country generally will agree with me when I say that. In theory it may be proper to have a definite system of finances by which enormous sums can be raised for elections, but in practice we *all know that it does not so work out. If, for instance, more than $6,000 was raised in Assiniboia by these fifty-cent subscriptions, that would mean that over 13,000 people contributed to this campaign fund-almost more adults than there are in the whole constituency. Of course, it is hardly likely that my hon. friend's opponents contributed to his scheme; so that he would have to make out a case based on the assumption that 13,000 people contributed to his campaign fund.
' Mr. GOULD: That is easy.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: My hon. friend says that is easy. Well, we may have some mathematical calculations from him later, and if we do I hope he will explain how in a constituency of that size such an amount could be raised in that way, even if the people were inclined to subscribe. There are sixteen constituencies in Saskatchewan, and if the amount so subscribed was over $6,000 in Assiniboia, that would mean close on to $100,000 for the whole of Saskatchewan, and $1,500,000 for one particular party as respfects the whole Dominion. Will any hon. member be deluded into the idea that that large amount is to go into legitimate expenses? I do not care what may happen in Assiniboia; it may be all right; but if a million and a half dollars shall have been raised by any class party in this Dominion, there is a menace to the rest of the people of the country. While I do' not make any charges of corruption-I would be sorry to do so-I do say that it is for the rest of the country to take some notice of these patent facts and to protest against elections being run in this extraordinarily expensive manner. If my hon. friends can make any explanation of this thing, I shall be only too happy to accept it.


Oliver Robert Gould: I think that is the longest question that ever was asked a man. When I had the floor the hon. member (Mr. Mowat) asked permission to put a question

to me; he has taken nearly three-quarters of an hour to ask it, and the question is not asked yet. The hon. member simply made assertions-assertions which I am going to repudiate. Every sensible man who hears it will know that the statement I am making is "the" statement. 1 have the statement here signed by the official auditor. The hon. gentleman quoted from a newspaper of January 2; I have an audited official statement here dated February 5. If he can reconcile these two things or show his auditor's statement, why, the House may believe it. But I have "the" statement; I brought it here for this purpose. I knew that the opportunity would arise; I knew that antagonism would be shown to our principles. No retrograde movement or anything else of that kind can stand against public opinion, and as I explained before the House rose at six o'clock, in this instance public opinion demanded the assertion of that principle. The people themselves initiated it, and that is one of the reasons why it was so successful.
Now, with regard to this fifty cents that the hon. gentleman mentions, he forgot- wilfully, I believe-that I also said-
Some hon. MEMBURS: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Oliver Robert Gould: The hon. gentleman is as well aware that I mentioned one dollar and other figures as he is that I mentioned fifty cents; whether wilfully or not, he declined to mention the one dollar. That quite a large number of individuals subscribed that amount would easily account for the $6,677.08 which was subscribed to the campaign fund in the electoral district of Assiniboia. The hon. gentleman cannot, therefore, make a point on that. Now, I am going to ask the hon. gentleman, a few questions, and I would like him to answer them when I take my seat. I would like to ask him how many elections he contested before 1917; how many elections he was successful in; who paid his campaign expenses, and what the amounts were? I have my financial statement here and I am not afraid to publish it; in fact, I want it known all over Canada, and I shall ask permission to have the figures recorded in Hansard for the edification of the people of Canada who, I am sure, will endorse the principles that we advocate.
Now, if I have made it clear that it is my audited statement which bpars the date of February 5 and which gives the information in detail signed by the official auditor



192(J

[Stage Direction]
and by members of the committee, I am sure that that does away with that premature statement-
John Hampden Burnham: Read that statement.


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


Oliver Robert Gould: I will give it to you. I am well acquainted with the statement the hon. gentleman has referred to. I am also well acquainted with the author of it. I am also well acquainted with the. fact that he is not a grain grower or a member of the Grain Growers' Association. We were just careful enough to find that out; we have his own acknowledgment; we know why he did it. Yet I can feel quite pleased that the hon. gentleman has shown so much of the Sherlock Holmes divination to find this out. But we did not try to buy up all the newspapers that published things like that. Further, w7e thrive under criticism. The more criticism we can have of the' nature supplied by the hon. gentleman here to-night, the surer we shall be of success throughout the country. We have proved that, and we will continue to prove it, and adverse criticism, the sincerity of which may, perhaps, be sometimes challenged, is the very thing we seek, the very thing we want, the very thing that will make the people of Canada think, and I believe that the people of Canada will at the first opportunity give the answer to the hon. gentleman who 'makes these criticisms on the floor of this House'. That will be the answer.


John Best: The hon. gentleman states
that he published his expenses in the newspapers. Did the hon. member publish his expenses in the newspapers, as the law demands, and, if so, in what newspapers?


Oliver Robert Gould: We published our expenses in the Grain Growers' Guide, the Este-van Mercury, the Estevan Progress, the Alameda Despatch, the. Carlyle Herald, the Carnduff Gazette, the Wawota Herald, the Maryfield News, the Kisbey (Standard, the Creelman Gazette, the Fillmore Gazette. Have I got sixteen? The Areola Standard, the Wawota Herald, the Heward Standard.


John Best: Will that be where a lot of the printing expenses went to?


Oliver Robert Gould: Some of them. I do not wish to enter into this in a discursive manner. I wish to give this information to the committee. I have the statement here and any hon. gentleman may come to my room and see the statement and everything in connection with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Oliver Robert Gould: I will read a few of the
clauses and give the figures.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it all. Read
the spicy parts.


Oliver Robert Gould: This is the N.N.P. financial statement covering Assiniboia by-election. The statement is signed by J. Morley Adams and F. S. Wilbur, committeemen, and dated at Creelman, February 10, and is prefaced by the following explanation:
At a meeting of the committee held at Stopghton on Friday, February 5, the undersigned, in company with the secretary-treasurer, were appointed a committee to compile a detailed statement of all moneys received and disbursed for organization and campaign work in connection with the recent by-election held in the constituency.
A very fair statement, is it not?
It is regretted by the committee that through the lack of specific instructions to the contrary-
Now, mark you, that here they are referring to the plank in the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture which demands publicity of campaign funds, and one of the members of the committee thinking-


Mr. SEXSMITH:: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Oliver Robert Gould: I will put the statement
on Hansard and then I will allow the hon. member to ask me a question.


John Albert Sexsmith: Will the hon. member allow me-


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) has the floor, and unless he gives way, a question in not in order.


Oliver Robert Gould: The statement continues:
It is regretted by the eommittee that through the lack of specific instructions to the contrary, the audited financial statement, as appearing in " The Guide," of 31st of December, 1919-
That is the statement that I referred to as the one that was first sent out a
.-was not first submitted to the finance subcommittee or the committee of the whole before publication.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Oliver Robert Gould: All right; pay good attention.
The committee assumes all blame, how-ever, for the too general nature of the original statement, and trusts that the accompanying detailed statement will explain all



that is required, to the many friends whose loyalty and general assistance throughout the late campaign made such a striking victory possible; while to those anonymous political opponents, who in the daily press, under noms de plume of "Disgusted Grain Gower," "Never Again," etc., found some small relief to feelings pent up since fond hopes were blasted on October 26, the committee desires to extend its consideration and sympathy; trusting that time, the great healer, will render less hitter the disappointment suffered by them politically during the campaign recently ended.
Statement of funds collected and disbursed by Assiniboia constituency committee of the New National Policy during the recent federal bv-elegtion campaign for term ending November 30. 1919.
In passing, when the horn, gentleman 1 first started to mention figures, it occurred to me that he must have got hold of the election campaign expenses of the gentleman who came into my electoral constituency to oppose me, but I di$l not see that my opponent published any campaign expenses at all. These are the receipts, showing receipts collected from the polling subdivisions and other points:
Creelman	$452	00
Hewnrd, Froude, Huntoon and
Sequin	
645	00Stoughton	
213	50Kisbey and Warmley	
525	95Areola	
121	00
Areola is where the home of your "Disgusted Grain Grower" is.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame on him.
, Mr. GOULD: (reading)
Carlyle	 $267 05
Manor	 489	31
That is my home town.
Redvers	$403	00That is the town	immediately	east	of me.Wawota	$261	10
That is to the north of me.
Alida	$292	00
That is to the south of me.
Storthoaks	
$32	00One of the	three	polls	that	put	in	an
opposition vote to me. It subscribed only $32.


An hon. MEMBER:: That proves it.


Oliver Robert Gould: (reading)
Carnduff	$279	75Oxbow and Glen Ewen	227	00Alameda	
40706Estevan	
448	70Macoun	
182	50Benson	
234	75Antler	
182	50Lampman	
115	85Willmar	
102	75Parkman	
56	00
fMr. Gould.3
I did not get a very large majority there, just thirty-six.
Steelman	$231	50Frobisher	
148	50Gapview	
44	50Total	$6,415 77
Then there is refund from Central G.G., $161.31. That was a fund that had been subscribed long ago. An organization was formed when we divorced our political party from the Grain Growers' organization, and the refund was made. Then there is a refund from L. W. Williamson of $100 making a total of $6,677.08, acknowledged.


William Cameron Edwards: How much unacknowledged?


Oliver Robert Gould: I am going to give you the campaign expenditure. In the first place, I wish to make this point that I need not .be afraid of my election expenses. My expenses, as a candidate, amounted to $356.55, and I still think that I might be able to provide that amount in case of contesting an election and any other hon. gentleman can do the same. Therefore, you see that the idea that has associated itself with this campaign fund, namely, that an individual had to have his campaign fund expenses paid, is not a fact. But the people initiated this thing, and they say that as a result they had a right to call the candidate or the member theirs. That was the principle that actuated these people, and I say again that it is a good principle. They have a right to call me their candidate, and I am pleased to be the candidate of such a people.


William Cameron Edwards: Does that carry the right to recall you if they see fit?


Oliver Robert Gould: I can deal with that if my hon. friend will let me finish this statement:
Organization expenditure total .. ..$2,292 69 CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE.
O. B. Gould, transportation
and general expenses ..	$356	55
T. Smith, secretary, salary 300 00
Expenses	 132	20

Travelling expenses, etc.
(committeemen's expenses)-
E. Waddington	 61 85
Alex. Sinclair	i 91 00
G. A. Muir	
23	30E. P. St. John	
21	30E. Bishop	
13	45J. W. Cairn	
67 35W. E. G. Ross	
23	45J. Morley .Adams	
28	OOR. Richardson	
10	90L. W. Williamson	1	30F. S. Wilbur	58	51Speakers expenses-	Mrs, Morgan	65	40Geo. Broadley	50	00E. A. Partridge	175	44Mary McCallum	39	28John M. Pratt	39	29R. M. Johnston	10	50Thos. Teare	TO	25Mrs. McNaughton	39	55H. C. Fleming	31	50Jno. Kennedy	is	00W. J. Orchard	19	00Mrs. McNeal	21	5-0Hall rentals	2-09	13Printing	1,170	78Stationery, postage, tele-	grams and telephone. . . .	129	[DOT]05Sundry livery charges . .	63	8-0Exchange on cheques (re-	ceived and sent)	20	95Cheques returned	15	06Subscriptions to Grain	Growers' Guide	12	75Office furniture - type-	writer	35	00Candidate's deposit	200	O'OSundries	23	05

Cash on hand and in bank	 703 91
Certified correct,

Robert Young.
Auditor.
Now, Mr. Chairman, you will see how wide of the mark hon. gentlemen were who have been talking of $12,000 for the election and $4,000 for printing expenses alone. Surely when these figures are available to them on Hansard, when confronted with the real authority, they will act the Good Samaritan and state the facts as they really are rather than make statements with the object of making people believe things which they do not know to be absolutely correct.


William Cameron Edwards: Will my hon. friend
now answer the question I asked him a few moments ago about the recall?


Oliver Robert Gould: The question is a very
fair one. We have that, as recorded in our platform. We believe in the principle of direct legislation. We also believe that with the initiative and the referendum you may have the recall. That is one of the planks of our platform, it is one of the things we discussed in our local. An agreement does exist between my committee, whose names I have read, and myself. Forty per cent of the number of- electors who voted at my election may, if I refuse to do what this committee asks me to do on the floor of this House-and that committee must meet very often and find out what public opinion is in the district of Assiniboia-if they advise me and I refuse 76|
to do that they can apply the recall, and ask me to go back. In going back I have the right of appearing before the people and giving an explanation of my attitude. The recall does not necessarily mean that they take the initiative away from me; in fact, it is both implied and actually writ-teen in my agreement with the committee that they do not wish to take the initiative away from me. I have given that agreement to my committee.


William Cameron Edwards: How many are on that committee?


Oliver Robert Gould: It is a committee of fifteen that was appointed by a general gathering of the people from all over the electoral district. Everybody was welcome, and they got together and appointed that committee and told them t-o proceed.


William Cameron Edwards: Did my hon. friend place his written resignation in the hands of that committee?


Oliver Robert Gould: To call the document I
have placed in the hands of the committee a resignation is a misnomer. I did not place my resignation in the hands of the committee. That would be a very difficult thing to do in practice. It is an idea that has gradually attached itself to the principle of the recall. It is not correct to say that you place your resignation in the hands of a committee. I have not been asked to do that. Some of the members of my committee did put it that way, but after an explanation they could all see the reason why such a thing could not exist.


William Cameron Edwards: Would my hon. friend be good enough to place that agreement on: Hansard for the information of the House?


Oliver Robert Gould: The committee hold that agreement. I also have a copy, but I haven't it here. It is something that I would not be afraid to place on Hansard, and yet I do not think it is absolutely necessary. I do not see what object it would serve. We take the stand that any individual can make whatever agreement he likes. Nothing can prevent you having your private agreement with a committee or a man. I am very pleased to say that some planks of our platform have been adopted by this Government, and the day will come when the recall will also be adopted. Public opinion wilL oblige whatever government is in power to adopt that principle. That is my firm and honest belief, and I would not make a statement here that I believed to ba wrong. One of the arguments in favour

of it, one of the things that prompted people to suggest it, is that they have a distinct recollection of what they considered [DOT]was the political debauchery of this country during the reciprocity campaign. People believed that large sums of money were put up so that the powers that be could use them for the purpose of defeating the ends of reciprocity, and that this money was used for that purpose. The people want to do away with that, and I am pleased to stand here and record it as my opinion that if the Government are sincere in desiring to frame a measure that will clean up politics, they have in the publicity of campaign funds one of the greatest opportunities ever afforded a government to make themselves popular and also to clean up politics. If they want to clean up politics let them adopt the proposal which I now advocate in approval of the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Brome, make it 810 instead of $10,000.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the groundwork of the'agitation of which he is a representative is that a large campaign fund tends to the corruption of the people of the country, as in 1911?


Oliver Robert Gould: We are asking that the sources of funds be published. If 'the campaign fund is necessary-and we acknowledge that it is-whg,t is wrong with publishing* the sources of that fund and also letting the people of the country know where the money was expended? And this should apply to governments, political parties and individuals, and it is what we ask for in order to clean up what the people believe has been political debauchery in the electoral districts. The people's heart is right, and public opinion is going to carry this thing. You cannot stand in the way of public opinion. History records the fact that when public opinion takes a notion to do a thing you may legislate and legislate as much as you like but eventually public opinion will have its way, and those who have not kept pace with it must go down. Now, Mr. Chairman, if this can be accepted as a little lesson in economics or morals I am only too pleased to have occupied the time of the House in giving some information. i do believe the country needs a lesson along this line, and I offer it tonight as I have experienced it In Assini-boia.


John Albert Sexsmith: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question which I rose
[Mr. Gould. I
to put to him a little while ago but which he refused me the privilege of asking. Was the financial statement which he has just been reading over the statement published by his financial agent in accordance with the Election Act?


Oliver Robert Gould: The Election Act?


John Albert Sexsmith: Yes.
Mr. -GOULD: I did not catch your ques-" tion. I was speaking to an hon. gentleman by my side.


John Albert Sexsmith: If I may be allowed to do so, I will repeat the question. Under the old Election Act every candidate either personally or by his financial agent was required to publish a detailed statement of his total expenses in the election. I ask the hon. gentleman:	Was the financial
statement which he has just read the financial statement published by his agent in accordance with the Election Act?


Oliver Robert Gould: This is a matter of honour, but we published more than the financial statement, and we will go further since we have had our experience. All the electoral districts out there are miles ahead of the idea incorporated in clause 10 of this Act, and miles ahead of it in the publicity idea.


John Albert Sexsmith: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question, which is a very simple one. Was the certified statement published by your agent in accordance with the law?


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes, certainly; and certified to by the official auditor..


John Albert Sexsmith: Was your financial
agent named by yourself under the Act?


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes; I am a member of the committee. I might ask 'you the same question; Did you publish yours?


John Albert Sexsmith: Yes sir, every time,
and my financial agent published- a certified and detailed statement of all expenses. Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, I must repeat, has not answered my question; he simply says: "I was a member of the committee."	-


Oliver Robert Gould: I said "yes"; I did positively.	.


John Albert Sexsmith: Did you appoint an
agent in accordance with the terms of the old Election Act, and was the statement published, his certified statement?


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes, sir; Mr. Thomas
Smith of Alida, 'Sask.


John Albert Sexsmith: Very well, that is an
answer.


John Best: I am convinced that the hon. member for Brome is quite correct when he says that we need a very stringent Election Act. The hon. member for Assiniboia has read out some twenty-five names of persons to avhom he made payments, but he has not told us what they were paid for. The contest was a close one. Any candidate can appoint a man to work for him as an .agent, and the hon. member mentioned sums ranging from a dollar and a half to over one hundred dollars, but he did not give us any information as to the nature of the work which was done by these twenty or twenty-five men to whom these different sums were paid. There is just the bald_ statement that-they were paid; and these moneys without any specification as to the purpose to which they were devoted, might have been paid for votes as much as for anything else. The hon. member also told us that he was going to give the amount paid in and subscribed. Subscribed by whom? ' That is what the Act asks for, but as far as I could gather from the hon. gentleman there was no mention of any one who subscribed a dollar. It might have been the Canadian Pacific Railway in one point, or Massey-Harris or some other large corporation. He got amounts ranging from, I think, about fifty dollars up to five or six hundred dollars, and then he tells us that i his platform aims at the abolition of corruption that exists in the political parties of this country in connection with election funds. Now, it is easy for an hon. gentleman or a candidate to say that the people are corrupt, but I think it should be an offence punishable by imprisonment for any one to make charges of this kind .which he cannot substantiate. I have never heard it said that either Grits or Tories had a million and a half dollars for election purposes, but by the calculations of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), the election costs in the Assiniboia election based on the figures he quoted as examples, would work out at about a million and a half dollars for the constituencies represented in this House. Did any one ever hear of a campaign fund among Liberals or Conservatives amounting to a sum that might buy up nearly every constituency in Canada? As the hon. member for Brome said, we want to make the Election Act so stringent that it will preclude all corruption of whatever kind, and I believe that this clause should be carried out to the letter to stop dishonest practices, such
as the hoarding up of great election funds with which to corrupt the people. I should like the hon. member for Assiniboia to tell us who subscribed this money. He mentioned the sum pf $6,600, but he gave no names, and we should like to know whp subscribed it. Why not publish your expenses?
We have been given the names of person? to whom money was paid, but we do not know what the money was paid for. Perhaps it was for votes. We might be justified in assuming that and finding fault with my hon. friend for doing as he did. because he did not tell us anything to the-contrary. I hope this clause will be passed;;
I think it is absolutely necessary, especially after what we have heard this afternoon and this evening.


John Albert Sexsmith: Just a word or two
more in connection with the clause before the committee. I am quite convinced tonight that the position I have taken with respect to this clause is absolutely right. I would therefore ask the mijnister if he would consider my recommendation and debar anybody from making a contribution for election purposes. In support of legislation of that kind we have had from the hon. member for Assiniboia to-night the best evidence that the committee could possibly wish for. The hon. gentleman has read a so-called statement, made he says by his financial agent. And what does it consist of? He claims to have handed out in various sums ranging up to $175 enough to buy an election in almost any riding in this country. The hon. gentleman did not tell us whether the persons who received this money were voters or non-voters. He has read a list of persons to whom payments were made-iMr. Jones, Mr. Brown, Mr. Wright, and so on. These persons received sums ranging from $10 up to $175. Are the persons to whom money has been so profusely handed outvoters? The hon. gentleman did not say that the expenditures were for printing, for working in the election, for running an aeroplane, for driving an automobile, or for any other purpose. He simply read a list of names sufficient to buy up-


Oliver Robert Gould: I rise to a point of order.


John Albert Sexsmith: Mr. 'Chairman, I have the floor.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for-Assiniboia has risen to state a point of order. He has the right to do so and I must ask the hon. member for East Peter-

borough (Mr. Sexsmith) to resume his seat until the point of order has been stated.


Oliver Robert Gould: The hon. gentleman says I did not state where these moneys were expended. I maintained that I did.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is not a
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN':	I must point out to
the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) that he has not stated a point of order. Any statement made by an hon. member can only be denied or corrected when he has concluded his remarks, unless he voluntarily relinquishes his right to the floor to enable another hon. member to make such denial or correction.


John Albert Sexsmith: Mr. Chairman, I will leave it to the committee to say whether the hon. gentleman has in one single case, with respect to payments running from |20 up to $175 if you like, stated what the payment was for. That is the point. The Election Act demands that the financial agent of a candidate should publish a detailed statement of all the candidate's expenses showing what was done with the money, which statement must he itemized and certified to. I do not wish to offer any further remarks except to say this-and I want to emphasize it with all my power: The hon. member for Assiniboia, by his financial statement and by his speech, has produced the greatest possible evidence in favour of the enactment of an election law that will prohibit anything of the kind, for, according to his own statement, he may have brought those people to vote his way, and there is nothing in the statement affording proof to the contrary. He says, in effect, that Mr. Brown got $25, Mr. Jones $55 and Mr. Wright 1175; but he does not say what for. Now is that not corruption of the rankest and vilest kind? The hon. gentleman does not even mention the name of his typewriter or state what she was doing. I again appeal to the minister, and to hon. gentlemen on both sides, to join with me-to accept my proposition. Let us have an Election Act that will prevent the sort of corruption that we have heard so much about to-night from the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I wish to say a few words in regard to this section, and I can assure the committee that I am exceedingly surprised to find that it should meet with opposition from any group in this Chamber, especially the class of representatives who are supposed to speak for the agrarian in-[The Chairman.]
terest in the Dominion. Reading the section carefully I do not believe it contains a single word to which any person can take exception. It certainly refers to unincorporated associations and includes partnerships. It also refers to incorporated associations and incorporated corporations; but is there any justification for any unincorporated association, of any form, taking the assets of that business and distributing them amongst the various political parties in this country? It is very true that when you have a small partnership they may get together and may decide as a body that a portion of their funds shall be devoted for this purpose, and an unincorporated association may do the same; but when you have a large body of men I believe they will be restrained by any court of law if they undertake to dissipate their assets for the benefit of any political party. When you come to the question of incorporated corporations or associations there can be no doubt what the state of the law is. No corporation, no association which is incorporated, has the slightest power whatever to take and distribute its profits or its funds for the support or maintenance of any political party or on carrying on any political campaign. Do these hon. gentlemen wish to have the law in such a state that such men can go out and deliberately violate the obligations of their associates, their partners and their shareholders. I think the section should be enacted into law if only for the protection of those who are partners, associates, or shareholders in any of these firms or corporations in Canada. I have no doubt that the hon. gentlemen who are opposed to the section have seen in their advent into the political life of Canada the dawn of purity in politics but, as has been pointed out by hon. gentlemen sitting by my side, the figures which have been given by the hon. member for Assiniboia are astounding to every member of this House, and will he equally astounding to every elector throughout the length and breadth of the country. Ever since Confederation those who have been engaged in political life in the Dominion have been charged with insincerity upon the subject of campaign funds by men of the class to whom I have referred when they wished to impute impure or corrupt methods. But there has been no more foundation for charging the statesmen of the past with corruption than there is to charge the Agrarian party with intended corruption when they say they intend to raise a campaign fund of a million and a half of dol-

lars. The criticisms which have been made with regard to the financial statement given by the hon. member (Mr. Gould) are in my opinion absolutely just and very truly deserved. There is very little in that statement outside of the item for printing which would suggest how one single dollar of that money was spent.
We do not claim to be any purer than the farmers' party-and I have no doubt that the Liberal members of this House do not claim to be any purer,-but, Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why any faction should come into this House and charge the two great parties which have so successfully administered the affairs of the Dominion since 1867 with political corruption and defilement while they held their respective terms of office. If we wish to place our political life on a higher and nobler plane ,it will not be accomplished by pursuing the tactics which have been started in connection with this subject. So far as the Farmers' party, or the Labour party, or the Liberal party, or any other party which ,may be formed, is concerned, they have just as good a right to exist and to participate in the administration of our national affairs as any political party which has existed since Confederation. But, Mr. Chairman, their ideals must be higher, they must not be based on destructive political criticism, they cannot succeed if they hurl at other parties charges for which they have no more proof than they have/ submitted to this House to-night.
, I regret very much that I have not the pianuscript of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), which is practically a substitute for this clause. It seems to me from hearing it read that it is worthy of very careful consideration by every hon. member. So far as the general principle of denying to associations, firms and corporations, unincorporated or incorporated, the right to contribute to political funds is concerned, I stand foursquare against such contributions, and I submit it is the duty of this Government to place some such legislation on our statute books.
There is another matter I would like to refer to-if you will permit me Mr. Chairman, for I think it is not exactly in order, but the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) has touched upon it and I think I may be pardoned if I refer to it briefly; it is the question of what practically amounts to the recall. He has referred to the electorate practically debauching members of the House of Commons in connection with campaign funds and the buying pf elections; but he stands up here to-night and admits that he has practically entered .into an agreement iwith his (electors in Assiniboia to resign in certain events. I know nothing which is more calculated to debauch our political life than such an agreement. It is true that this question has been discussed throughout the length and breadth of the West as to class legislation, "and it became an active issue in the province of Alberta during the last election. Frequent references have been made to the platform of the United Farmers of Alberta, and I do not purpose to go into that. But be that as it may, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gould) will deny that he stands for class representation, he must nevertheless answer or explain away that agreement to which he referred.
When one reflects that a member elected to this House is elected not for the constituency of Assiniboia, not for the city of Toronto, not for the city of Halifax, but as a representative of every man and woman in the whole Dominion, it is startling to find that in the face of that he immediately repudiates his obligations as a member of this House and says: I will not represent the Dominion of Canada, I will represent only the constituency of Assiniboia-and 'a very small-portion of the electors of that constituency.
If the hon. gentleman can point to any principle in the political history of this country which has a greater tendency to debauch and to stultify the representatives of the people, I certainly would like to have him tell us about it. And I do not limit my remarks to the hon. member for Assiniboia, but I include any other hon. members who will say that they are going to place a written resignation in the hands of a committee, to be acted upon iif they do not fulfil the wishes of that committee. What would be the effect? Members of Parliament, he tells us, are human. If any committee of his constituents can point a pistol at their representative's head and say: "If you do not vote thus and so we are going to place your resignation in the hands of the Speaker," what is that representative going to do? We are no more independent than those who are behind us make us, and when he feels that there is a possibility of losing his seat, just then he is going to obey the dictates of that committee, whether it be in the far East or in the far West. Supposing we approach a crisis in the affairs of the Dominion and perhaps twelve or fifteen votes in this House would turn the scale.

If those twelve or [fifteen men had this loaded pistol pointed at their heads, the destinies of this country might be changed for good or ill. I submit that that is a power which should rest in the people as a whole and not in any individual constituency or in any particular committee in that constituency. We must realize that when we sit in this House we do not sit here for the manufacturers, we do not sit here for the grain growers of the West, we do not' sit here for any class or faction, hut we sit here as representatives of all the people to pass legislation which shall contribute to the best interests of the country as a whole.
I am sorry that I have digressed, Mt. Chairman, but when the hon. gentleman brought this matter up I felt that I would be remiss in my duty if I did not refer to it. If there is no legislation on our statute books to meet this case, it is the duty of this Govefnment at this session to legislate that any agreement such as that referred to, entered into between a member and a committee of his constituents, is unlawful and shall have no bearing or influence on his conduct in this House.


Mr. DAVIS:: It is said, Mr. Chairman,
that one cannot have an omelette without breaking eggs, and if in what I have now to say I should break one malodorous egg,* it will not be by accident, but by design. First of all, I believe in publicity of campaign subscriptions, but I see in it a measure of danger, which danger has not been pointed out in the discussion to-night. :So far as what has been said by some hon. members on this side of the House recently is concerned, I think their remarks about campaign subscriptions being a danger prove too much, for they prove that the man . who gives his services voluntarily in an election is a bad citizen. We all agree that that is nonsense. So too is the statement that money subscribed voluntarily for the support of a political cause is a public peril, and I cannot believe that men who assert it believe it.
. Now, with regard to campaign funds- and I have had about* thirty years' experience of elections and am not yet a very old man-I would like to know how many hon. members in this House can say on their word of honour that they believe their published campaign expenses cover all the moneys that were expended at their election. Now, there is what you are concealing, by the fact that you are-


John Hampden Burnham: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is insinuating
[Mr. Tweedie. [
that the members of this House or some of them are dishonourable in the statements made of their campaign expenses.


Georges Henri Boivin: If that was the intention of the hon. member I am sure that he will withdraw the insinuation.
Mr. DAV/IS: That was not my intention. Mr. Chairman. I said that these gentlemen would not give their word of honour that the sums shown by their statements were the only sums expended in their election. I do not mean that they knew what was otherwise expended or that they were parties to that expenditure. Nevertheless, there is scarcely a man in this House who does not suspect that sums were expended which came from a campaign fund, and that is what is struck at in the amendment submitted by the member for Brome. There is no use in camouflaging the situation ; we may as well face it honestly.	*
Nevertheless, this is what I say is objectionable and against public policy in connection with the publication of campaign subscriptions: A man of large means has just as much right to subscribe to a campaign fund as the man of small means. When you publish the fact that the man cl large means has subscribed to a campaign fund you at once excite comment on the part of opponents as to what this contributor expects for his large subscription. That man may have no more reasonable anticipation of favour because of his subscription than the man who has subscribed his two dollars, but if he has gone the limit mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Mc-Master), $ 10,000, it is undoubtedly a ground for comment. Perhaps some method should be devised by which the malodourous suspicion which now attaches to campaign funds may be allayed without arousing class feelings or embittering party politics. But for the present, if I have to choose between that danger and the benefits which in my opinion will result from publicity of campaign subscriptions, I shall vote for their publicity.
Mr. EDWARDS1: Mr. Chairman, I shall occupy only a few minutes of the time of the committee, as most of the things that I had in mind to say have been said better and more vigorously by the member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) than 1 could say them. I can understand why the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has introduced this amendment. I had almost expected that the amendment would have been seconded by the member for South Renfrew

(Mr. Pedlow). The member for Brome had an opportunity of seeing the iniquities carried on jn the constituency of Assiniboia. He was there; he did not have to view them from a distance. He was right in the midst of this whirlpool of iniquity to which reference has been made by several hon. members, and practical admission of which has come from the hon. member who is in receipt of the honour produced by that iniquity. I can understand how keenly alive the hon. member for Brome is to the necessity for stringent regulations in our Franchise Act to put a stop to such terrible things as he must have witnessed in that campaign out in Assiniboia.
I hold in my hand a little document entitled "The New National Policy." I assume that some of my hon. friends on the other side have seen it; 1 do not know that it adds anything to the halo which surrounds the document that they take a pride in it. However, we will let that pass. In this document I find this paragraph:
And whereas the protective tarftX has heen and is the chief corrupting influence in our national life, because the protective interests, in order to maintain their unjust privileges, have contributed lavishly to political and campaign funds, thus encouraging both political parties to look to them for support, thereby lowering the standard of public morality.
This pronouncement is all the more significant in the light of what took place in the election in Assiniboia. According to this expression of opinion, politics in this country have been vastly corrupted by contributions to campaign funds. Yet we find a regular, systematized campaign carried on under the auspices of this holier-than-thou party to collect campaign funds, not from this and that individual, but systematically from door to door. /If they meant what they said when they placed that plank in their platform, they should have been the last persons in the world to seek to collect campaign funds for political purposes. There is this to be said in regard to contributions that have been made in former elections in this country; 1 have no doubt that contributions have been made by individuals, perhaps by corporations, manufacturing establishments, and so on, to both political parties, but I am not aware that contributions have ever been made by individuals, corporations, manufacturing establishments or any other group of men that carried with them a demand that the party or person for whom the contribution was made should step down and out whenever the contributor said so. If we accept
as true the statement that contributions have been made by corporations and manufacturing establishments in times past- and this clause in the Bill is aimed to put a stop to that-we know that these contributions have been made to this or that party because the contributor believed in the principles of that party; but it has remained for this holier-than-thou party to collect contributions from certain people in this country for the benefit of and to carry out the ' wishes of a certain class in this country. Never in the history of Canada, except through this organization, have contributions been made to either political party to carry out the wishes of a particular class and involving a penalty if those wishes should not be complied with. What else but class legislation can you expect from a party which is tied up as this party is? The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) told us to-night that there was in his constituency a special committee composed of fifteen men; that this special committee met regularly to pass their opinions upon his acts and his conduct in this House; that he might expect to hear from this special committee of fifteen if his conduct and his votes in tins House did not meet with their approval; and that when this special committee of fifteen intimated to him that his course was not acceptable to them, they had the right to ask him to step down and out;-or at least, when forty per cent of the votes cast in that constituency made that demand, he had to comply with that demand, and step down and out. I should like to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia if he will place on the records of this House the agreement which he signed with the fifteen men on that committee. The hon. gentleman sits in this House as an elected representative of what? I want to know; I have a right to know; the people of this country want to know. Does he sit here as the elected representative of the people of the Dominion of Canada or as the elected representative of a group of people situated in Assiniboia?


Mr. BUTTS:: ' Disqualify him on his own statement.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know but that the remark of my hon. friend (Mr. Butts) is quite in order. I should like to see the agreement before saying whether hjs statement is in order or not.


Robert Hamilton Butts: You are only a doctor.


William Cameron Edwards: I admit this is a matter - for the diagnosis of a lawyer rather than that of a doctor; but coming back to the

remark of the hon.' member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Butts) we have an hon. member holding a seat in this House who says that he has signed an agreement which is held by fifteen men out in Assiniboia;-and I claim that having referred to that agreement, having acknowledged that there is an agreement signed by him and held by that committee, that hon. gentleman is in duty bound to place [DOT]that agreement upon the pages of Hansard. If that does not come pretty close to an in-. fringement of the Independence of Parliament Act, then I want to know what do,'s. 'What would he the result in this country if this condition of affairs obtained throughout the whole of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. MAHARG:: We would have an election.


William Cameron Edwards: That might not be just as favourable to the hon. member (Mr. Maharg) as he thinks. It might even have the result of sending my hon. friend back to rely upon his $5,000 or $6,000 that he does not get in this House, and that he does not get out of farming except by farming the farmers. Let me just say this to my hon. friend who seems quite certain of himself and of his little group, that I will venture the proposition that when the next election takes place, that group will be even smaller than it is now, because just as soon as the people of this country have an opportunity of seeing behind the doors and investigating the platform and policy of these hon. gentlemen, the people will have enough sense to turn them down and to make their choice between the two old parties which have carried this country on since Confederation.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What about Timiska-ming?


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know that my ' hon. friends in the little special group on the other side are cheering or feeling very gay over that. I have not seen any very strong manifestations of pleasure on their part over the result in Timiskaming. Of course, I suppose that they are willing to claim this man, now that he has been elected, but they were mighty careful to keep away from him while the election was on. Probably, if they had gone up there, they would have had to come to some conclusion and state definitely where they stood as regard the eight-hour day proposition. They hedged in regard to that when the matter came up in this House, and they said that it was "forced for strategic pur poses"-I think that was the term which

one hon. gentleman used in regard to it. They did not express themselves upon the eight-hour day proposition; for .strategic purposes, it was better to remain silent so that they could maintain the cohesion between labour and the farmers. Had they gone to Timiskaming, they might have required to answer those questions, and so they kept away. In regard to that election, however, they can take all the comfort they like out of it and I do not think any hon. member on either side of this House wall begrudge them the candidate who was elected in Timiskaming.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. member know the figures of that election,-whether the candidate who was elected beat the other two?


William Cameron Edwards: He did not. In fact, 1 believe the vote polled was about half of that which was polled in the previous election.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Six of one and half a dozen of the other.


William Cameron Edwards: Somewhere about that. It seems to me, in regard to this case, that what we are asked to consider is this. Do we intend, by the adoption of this clause, to put a stop to any contributions, by corporations or unincorporated companies or organizations, to parties for political purposes? That is the question before us. We have the statement in the platform of the United Farmers or Grain Growers that they believe that in times past there has been corruption from that sodrce, yet we find them opposing this clause which is designed to put a stop, so far as it is possible for Parliament to do so, to corrupt practises.


Mr. LALOR:: Is it not a fact that this clause was in the old Act? There is no change in it.


William Cameron Edwards: It seems to me that the only way in which we can get on the track of our hon. friends opposite is to take it for granted that they are as holy and pure as they say they are and to make an exception of the United Grain Growers or Farmers in this clause.


Robert Hamilton Butts: You are taking big chances.


William Cameron Edwards: I have no doubt that in that case the clause would go through without further opposition. That is no doubt what these hon. gentlemen would like; but I want to say that from the standpoint of electoral purity, there never before was an instance in the whole history of the

Dominion of Canada which made so much for corruption and debauching of the electorate as these systematic methods, adopted by this new group over the way, and we have only in imagination to apply their methods to every constituency in the Dominion of Canada, to realize just how corrupting and debauching the methods which they advocate would be to this country. It is the bounden duty of this Parliament to enact restrictions that will prevent these gentlemen from carrying out the methods which they have declared as their own.


John Archibald Maharg: It was not my intenion
to intervene in this debate, and I would not have done so but for the endeavour that has been made on the opposite side of the Ho use, apparently deliberat ely as Hansard will	show to-morrow if it is carefully followed, to prove that we have been opposing clause 10. The hon. member (Mr. Edwards) made the statement that the Grain Growers' representatives were opposing clause 10. That was an absolute mistake. Nobody in this group has said that he was opposed to section 10 or to its principle. On the contrary, we heartily endorse this principle, every word of it. The only suggestion that was made from this quarter was for the insertion of two words "organization or" referring to incorporation, and I think the hon. member who offered the suggestion made his position perfectly clear.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Does the hon. member speak for the official Opposition?


John Archibald Maharg: No, I am speaking for those whom the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) saw fit to describe as the grain growers' representatives. There may be some of those people in the official Opposition. At all events, there are no doubt members of the Opposition who would like to be representatives of the grain growers because they know what the results would be.
I wish to deal briefly with the arguments of my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) who has just taken his seat. He said that he could quite understand the reason why the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) moved his amendment, because he had had practical experience of the evils he was trying to remedy. My hon. friend must know that the amendment is absolutely copied from the system that was adopted in Assiniboia. It was individual contributions that were made in Assiniboia, and that is what this amendment calls for, if I understand it, and individual contributions only. So his argument there falls absolutely to the
ground. It is interesting and very significant to note the great desire for political uplift, if I might use the term, that has been in evidence since the agriculturists and the ordinary people of Canada decided to take some interest in the affairs of the country, even to the extent of spending a little bit of their money in an effort lo improve conditions.
We have heard references to. a "Disgusted Grain Grower," and I could not help wondering if it were not possible that some of the statements that have been made here had their foundation in disgusted politicians. Personally,. I pay very little attention to anonymous contributions to the press. If a man has not the backbone to put his signature to the views he wishes to put before the public, I think the public is justified in paying very little attention to them. My hon. friend (Mr. Mowat) made a most significant statement this evening. He said that the expense of an election in a city was about ten times greater than that of an election in a rural district. I cannot for the life of me understand how he reaches that conclusion. Some of our rural constituencies are from one hundred to one-hundred-and-fifty miles square, and are fully settled. Does he mean to say that you can cover that territory at less expense than you can cover a city constituency where you can walk from one end to the other in perhaps fifteen minutes? Or does he mean to suggest that it takes a lot more money to bring the people in a city constituency into line with the proper view than the people in the country? I do not know on which of these alternatives he bases his ten-to-one calculation, but certainly it cannot be that the renting of halls for meetings in a city, where thousands of people attend, or transportation expenses in a constituency which you can cover on foot in less than an hour, accounts for this difference. There must be some other feature peculiar to a city election if it costs ten times as much to conduct as an election in the country.
My hon. friend laid great stress on an article that he said was written by Mr. Woodbridge. If he had not told this House the position that Mr. Woodbridge had formerly held, it might have passed, but he told us that Mr. Woodbridge was a former secretary of a farmers' organization, and we know it is quite customary for deposed individuals as well as deposed politicians to find fault.
My hon. friend (Mr. Gould) put on Hansard to-day a statement of his election ex-

penses. One or two members have claimed that he made no reference at all to the pry-poses for which these moneys were to be expended, but simply gave names of individuals. Surely that must be a deliberate mis-statement, for my hon. friend (Mr. Gould) stated distinctly that these items were for the expenses of . speakers during the campaign. He made that very clear, and surely the hon. gentlemen who undertook to castigate him in that respect were very wide of the mark. Their objections were quite uncalled for. All we ask is fair play. We do not want anything else. We have absolutely nothing to hide. We court the fullest investigation into every dollar of expenditure and every dollar of contribution.
Coming now to clause 10, I have stated that we are not opposed in any way to the principle, but personally, if I have to choose between the clause as it now stands, with no provision made to cover the points raised by my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster), I shall have to vote for the amendment. The amendment deals with what is perhaps of more vital importance than anything contained in the Bill. It demands the immediate- publication of all contributions towards campaign funds. That I regard as of vital importance, and unless the minister in charge of the Bill is prepared to give us an undertaking that this clause will be amended to provide for the full publication of all contributions to campaign funds I shall be compelled to vote for the amendment. I think the minister would be well advised to give us such an undertaking.
We have heard considerable from the other side of the House about the recall. I shall not go into that very fully to-night. The principle of the recall has been recognized for years* and years. As my hon. friend (Mr..Gould) has stated, if over forty per cent of the voters who actually voted at his election are dissatisfied with his actions they can recall him. I am not prepared to say that there is anything vicious about that principle. I am of opinion that if that principle were in force to-day we would probably not require resolutions in this House calling for an election; I am fully convinced that we would have had one long ago if that principle had been in effect. I agree with hon. members in the opinion that we ought to have campaign funds if the people are to be represented by those whom they desire to represent them. But if you compel each candidate to defray all his election expenses, then I think you will succeed in establishing here a rich man's

club and will not make for the proper representation of the people. I think the principle is sound that the people should pay their own way. It. is their business and their business only, and it is only fair that when their business is being conducted they themselves should pay all the expenses in connection with it. We stand by that principle as a sound one, as one which tends to the general improvement of political conditions in the country, and we are absolutely opposed to contributions being made from industrial concerns, whatever they may be. But we do not think there can be any serious objection to the principle that the voters themselves should contribute the necessary expenses to carry on an election campaign.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member (Mr. Maharg) strongly emphasizes the importance of the virtues of honesty and fairness on the part of members of this House and of the people generally throughout the country. Permit me to say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not concede to the farmers or the manufacturers, or any other class of citizens in Canada, a monopoly of the fairness and honesty that characterize the nation. These virtues should be remembered by all the associates of the hon. gentleman in making such statements, for instance, as that said to have been made by a gentleman, at Timiskaming who, I understand, alleged that it cost forty per cent of the Victory Loans to float the loans. The hon. member at the beginning of his remarks made the statement that none of his party had taken exception to this clause 10. Well, the press is very badly misquoting the* hon. member and some of his friends, for I will read an item from a newspaper report which does not accord with the statement of the hon. member. This item is dated Toronto, March 24, and is as follows:
The proposed Federal Franchise Act occupied the attention of the delegates to the annual convention of the Canadian Council of Agriculture here to-day, and it was the expressed belief of the council that clause 10 of the new Act would interfere with the legitimate political activity of organized farmers.
Clause 10 provides that no company or association, unless incorporated for political purposes. may contribute to political funds.
It was the opinion of the council that any organization, incorporated or otherwise, should be permitted to contribute to political funds, but that in all cases the source of such contributions should he made known before an election takes place.
John F. Reid, M.P., Torkton, Saskatchewan, and John A. Maharg, M. P., Moosejaw, Sask., made statements to the effect that the clause as drawn would prevent contributions by farmers' organizations to campaign funds for political

purposes. The fear was expressed that the clause might even debar the Canadian Council of Agriculture from issuing campaign literature, as this would be for a " political " purpose.
I can hardly see wherein this extract coincides with the hon. gentleman's assertion that there was no objection on the part of any members of his party to this clause.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Camouflage.


John Archibald Maharg: I know that the hon.
gentleman wants to be fair, and perhaps he will accept my correction. In referring to the clause, I sajd that none of us had made any objection. That is to say, none of the members of this House had made any objection to the principle of the clause.


Robert James Manion: Of course, I accept the hon. gentleman's correction, but I think he is a little more guarded in his words now than he was on the former occasion. In regard to the question of recall, I do not think any hon. gentleman in this House, who gives the subject any thought, can consider the proposition a fair one. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) criticized the campaign funds of past elections, and I should like to ask him this question: Would he consider it fair for my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), for example, to be elected to this House, using part of the campaign funds of the party he represents and offering, let us suppose, to the Manufacturers' Association the privilege of recalling him if he did not support what they chose to propose in regard to the tariff? Yet that is just as fair as the proposition that some of the farmers of the country put up. The farmers, after all, do not constitute the whole population of the country. There are a few other classes besides the agricultural communities, and I made it my. business to ascertain just what was the proportion of each class of citizens in Canada at the census of 1911. The census showed by occupations in the category of those earning their living, farmers 993,735-34 per cent of the population; manufacturers, that is, people working in factories, 491,342; and-


John Archibald Maharg: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to give us the exact information in regard to the farmers as he has given in regard to the manufacturers? There are a number of people who make their living by employment in agriculture, and the number quoted by my hon. friend represents those who are actually farmers.
Air. . MANION: The hon. gentleman evidently is under the impression that I am
endeavouring to mislead the committee. Let me inform him, however, that I am giving the exact proportions as shown by the census of 1911, and those engaged in the manufacturing industry are given as 491,342, or eighteen per cent of the population. But the interesting point, and the one that touches me personally-for I am neither a farmer nor a manufacturer, but a member of the middle class-is the fact that the great mass of the working population do not belong to either of the foregoing classes and totals 1,298,557, or forty-eight per cent. In other words, the farmers make up thirty-four per cent, the manufacturers eighteen per cent, and the others, including myself, men of other professions, labourers, etc., forty-eight per cent, practically half of the total. I must say therefore that it is about time that this forty-eight per cent got busy, and I intend to take my part in an effort to see that the manufacturers and the farmers shall not entirely run the affairs of the country. That is the point I wish to make. I do not think that the farmers of this country, even if they are a fairly strong party, should feel that they are the whole poulation of Canada, as some seem to think; they should remember that sixty-six per cent of the workers of the country are not farmers.


Air. HALBERT:: I should not have risen had it not been for the honour which has fallen to this group in the House of holding the attention of the opposite side for such a length of time, I think it is a great credit to us in this small group that we have had so much attention accorded us, and I cannot help feeling that hon. members in the other opposition will feel grateful to us for having contrived to give them a much-needed rest. Some days ago I rose in my place to reply to the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith), and was not allowed to go on at the time, 'being assured that the question would come up again when I should have an opportunity of discussing it. However, I do not think I shall ''spend any time to-night replying to the hon. member; I shall leave the matter to the decision of the electors, and when the time comes the hon. member will get his answer.
Now, I desire to answer a question that has been asked by an hon. member on the other side as to what would happen if we had the recall in effect. I tell him that if the recall were in effect there would not he enough left of hon. members opposite to form a corporal's guard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: No wonder they are scared of it.


Robert Henry Halbert: Some hon. gentlemen
have objected, and objected very strongly, to our raising a campaign fund by voluntary contributions. Those of us on the cross benches seem to be a thorn in the flesh of hon. gentlemen opposite. Our presence in this Chamber must occasion them great pain judging from the agonizing groans which they emit from time to time.
In criticizing our method of collecting money to meet election expenses the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sex-smith) declared it was disgraceful and very humiliating to see the farmers' organization collecting funds voluntarily and publicly, and he spoke of going around with a basket for these funds. Well, all I can say is, the farmers in East Peterborough must have contributed very lavishly when it required a basket to hold the collection. Hon. gentlemen opposite, if they are sincere, must also object to the method of raising funds for the Forward Movement in connection with the churches. As I say that was a Forward Movement, and ours is a Forward Movement also.
I am very sorry to think that the few members in our little parliamentary group have caused hon. gentlemen opposite so much annoyance. At the same time we cannot help it. We were elected just as they were by the votes of the people in the ridings that we represent, and consequently we have as much right to our seats in this Chamber as have the hon. members who have been indulging in the criticisms referred to. We are only a small group as yet, and there are always some bullies who will abuse the small boy, but the time comes when the small boy reaches manhood. This "small boy,'' if I may speak of our party as such, will eventually grow up and take the places of hon. gentlemen opposite. Our representatives have commenced to arrive and they are still coming.
It was suggested during the discussion that these men who gave subscriptions were buying votes. I must say that I never before heard of a man buying his own vote with his own money.
I will not occupy any further time of the committee, except to say in closing that all hon. gentlemen opposite need to do is to keep on abusing the farmers, because we are thriving on that abuse. My advice to them is to keep on putting up all the obstacles they possibly can in our path; they are only, driving the nails deeper into their own political coffins.
DMr. Halbert. 1


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment carry?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before the amendment carries-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -and in so stating I merely compliment the intelligence of the members of the committee-1 would crave the indulgence of hon. gentlemen for a moment in order to present the gist of the amendment I have moved, because when I submitted the amendment in the first place a large number of hon. gentlemen who are now sitting in the Chamber were not present. First of all, the amendment is not in any way opposed to the principle of the clause as it appears in the Bill; it merely goes further than the clause does. The clause states that no unincorporated company or association, and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone, shall make contributions for political purposes. My view is that under this clause nothing would be easier for any body, association or company, who wished to contribute heavily to campaign funds, than to organize a small corporation for political purposes only, and then for that corporation so organized to subscribe to the campaign fund of any of the parties or of individual candidates. My amendment goes still further. I leave out the specific clause about companies or corporations incorporated for political purposes alone, and my amendment reads that no incorporated or unincorporated company or association, nor any firm, shall directly or indirectly contribute to campaign funds. I will not bother reading the exact terms of the resolution; they are almost word for word with the terms of the clause as it appears in the Bill. Then I go on to say that individuals may subscribe to funds, either to the general fund of any of the political parties or for any individual candidate, but I say that these individual subscriptions must be subjected to certain restrictions, and I have made the restriction that there shall be no contribution larger than $10,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame!


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am free to say that amount may be too large and I am willing to make it smaller. But I know that there are here and there in the country rich men who, with pure motives, do subscribe very heavily to campaign funds. The

second restriction is that there shall be full publicity to- all campaign subscriptions, whether to the party generally or to individual candidates. That is the gist of my amendment.
Now that amendment was not inspired through my visit to Assiniboia. I have a very distinct recollection of that visit, and even were the recollection likely to fade hon. gentlemen opposite constantly remind me of the trip. Well, it was a most enjoyable trip. It is true, I was not successful, but I learned a great deal about the West. I had the pleasure of addressing audiences than whom none could have been more intelligent, patient, or courteous, and I came back with a very high appreciation of the people of the West. I did my best to elect the Liberal candidate in that riding.
I am sorry I was not successful. But I would not allow this occasion to pass without raising by voice in protest against the charge made by hon. gentlemen opposite that the candidate won by corrupt methods, because in my humble opinion he did not do anything of the sort. What did I find when I went out to Assiniboia? I found that the people of Assiniboia were so anxious to elect the Grain Grower candidate that they were not only prepared to work voluntarily, but to put up their own money, to return him. Now is that a wrong thing to do?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You cannot imagine
that in a constituency like Assiniboia a man of modest means is going to be able to meet his own election expenses, because that riding is as big as some of our Eastern Provinces. It would take a man days, if not months, to go from place to place. And, of course, there are all sorts of other legitimate expenses. Unless we are prepared to say that only rich men can enter this House we have got to have some way of meeting such cases. In a large riding such as Assiniboia-I represent a riding Where a man of modest means can meet his own election expenses-or in populous cities like Toronto or Montreal, it is almost impossible for a candidate of modest means to meet his own expenses. Now what is the remedy? Which is best to have-money coming in from outside, from a central fund subscribed by we know not whom, to be spent in the riding; or is it best for the electors to put their hands in their pockets and subscribe to the legitimate expenses of the candidate in that riding. I prefer the latter method. It is true it is open to objection. I found
that a lot of the people of Assiniboia were pf Scotch descent-*
, Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -and Irish descent too, and the old verse was brought to my mind very strongly, that "Where your treasure ;,s there shall your heart be also." I found that after putting up $2 or $3 or $4 or $5- or 50 cents, as the case might be, to help their candidate, it was very difficult for pie to get them to vote: otherwise, although jbey might be perfectly convinced that my arguments were better-without saying a word about the candidates, because comparisons are odious.
, That is an objection it is true, for it makes the man who has subscribed for the election of a certain candidate a stronger partisan than he otherwise would be. But ps between the constituency in which the electors individually put up their money to elect their candidate, and the constituency in which men wait for their day's time to be paid from outside funds, I prefer the former, although I do see the disadvantages. As far as I could judge there was nothing but extreme partisanship aroused ,by individuals contributing ito the election of their candidate in the constituency of Assiniboia. I would ask hon. members to believe that there was no corruption; that these payments which have been read by ,the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) were made to a certain number of speakers, for I saw them, I heard some of them, and although I do not know whether they were pll worth the money that was spent upon them, I do know that they were speaking for the candidate.
! Now, why cannot this amendment be accepted? I believe it is a slight improve-pent on the law, and I would ask the (House to support it.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Might I ask the hon. piember, (would it not be possible under the amendment which he suggests that lour or five Canadian millionaires might get their heads together, subscribe several piillion dollars, and divide up the Dominion, giving a $10,000 campaign fund to- each candidate running in their interests?- And so long as the money wias not paid over ten days before the election there would not have to be any publication whatever, and the people would know nothing about it until after the election was over.
. Mr. CANNON: They would not know, anyway.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I see- the possibility of that, but I do not think it is at all likely,


because there will have to be publicity, and three or four millionaires are not likely to get their Iliads together and subscribe several million dollars so that $10,000 may be given to each candidate. As a matter of fact, there being publicity, it seems to me they would defeat their object, if such an object they had. However, as I said when I placed this amendment before the House, I would have no objection to its .being further improved and so amended that no one man in .the country should be allowed to subscribe more .than $10,000 either to the general funds of any party or to the fund of any one candidate. I am quite willing to have the amendment altered to meet the [possible objection raised by the member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro);


William Sora Middlebro: What I object to is making it legal for a man to subscribe $10,000 even to one candidate, for it sets the stamp of approval on any man putting up that amount to elect a candidate, and if 'he does so, he is bound to have a certain amount of influence over .that candidate when elected.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I point out that under the clause as drafted there is nothing to prevent any one giving a great deal more than $10,000?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before this discussion closes I would-


Georges Henri Boivin: The Acting Solicitor .General has the floor.
. Mr. GUTHRIE: As the Bill is drawn, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing to prevent an individual subscribing .such an amount as he may see fit for political purposes. It never has been found .necessary in Canada to place any limitation on the subscriptions of an individual; but it has been found necessary in our political history and in the wisdom of this House to place restrictions upon what corporations might be disposed to subscribe for political purposes. In the year 1908 .the House of Commons passed clause 10 almost in the identical language in which it .appears in the Bill to-day. So if my hon. friends from Assinibo-ia (Mr. Gould) and from Maple Creek ,(Mr. Maharg) imagine that the clause was passed with reference to the Grain Growers of Saskatchewan or the United Farmers of Ontario, they are very much astray in theiir conclusions. The clause was passed for the avowed purpose of putting .a stop ito corporate- subscriptions for election purposes, and I believe it has done good .service since it was enacted. The

proposal of the Government is simply to re-enact -the -clause in this Bill. In fact, the only change of language is -that which occur-s in the first line to make it quite clear that its real application is to corporations and associations, be they incorporated or unincorporated.
I understand there is a consensus of opinion in this House as to the propriety of this clause remaining. Then why not let us all vote for it? "Oh no," my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) says, without reading the statute or the Bill-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have read the statute and the Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: -and he comes forward with an amendment to provide for something that is absolutely provided for in the Bill, and provided for, I think, by a method much better than his proposal. Why, this afternoon, those who paid any attention to what was going on in this House know that we passed a most drastic clause, to provide for publication of every subscription that is given for any political purposes durilig an election. We provided in .the'most ample way for the publication of these facts. If hon. members will turn to clause 79 of the Bill-and this was all read this afternoon-they will find that the following information must be furnished:
Within two months after the election all moneys, securities, and the equivalent of money, received, by or promised to the official agent or the candidate or any other person for the purpose of expenses incurred, or to he incurred, on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election, naming every person from whom the same may have been received, or by whom such promise was made, showing as to each sum whether it was received or merely promised, whether in money or otherwise, and whether as contribution, loan, advance, deposit or otherwise.
All that information has to be given, and it must be published in a newspaper in the constituency -where the election took place. That is a much more comprehensive section than the amendment submitted in the resolution of my hon. friend from iBrome. Any man who wanted to circumvent the law could circumvent that amendment, for there are other ways of paying money than by a direct cash payment. This clause is the result of experience in this country and in Great Britain, and it is designed to meet not . only every direct payment or contribution, but every indirect payment or contribution, and every promise to be hereafter kept, whether by way of contribution, loan, advance, deposit or otherwise. It will afford far more efficient relief than is provided for in the proposal of my hon.

friend. The only thing in his proposal that raises a new subject for discussion is the $10,000 limitation. We have never had a limitation in Canada upon individual subscriptions. If the committee think it well to provide one, I do not think there is any serious objection to doing so. But I do not know that we have ever been very much bothered in our political contests by $10,000 subscriptions from individuals. I have never heard of any.


Mr. JACOBS:: What about the Pacific
scandal, when $100,000 was paid into a campaign fund?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that that was an individual contribution; in fact, I think otherwise.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think Sir Hugh Allan
made it.


Hugh Guthrie: Some exception has
been taken by hon. members on this side to that part of the clause which provides, in effect, that contributions may be made for political purposes by companies or associations incorporated for political purposes only. That clause was much discussed in the session of 1908. The language was first introduced at that time, and the Conservative party of that day contested it most strongly. Sir Allen Aylesworth who, as Attorney General in the administration of that day, had charge of the Bill, boldly said, speaking on the subject in the House, that that clause had been introduced to protect the Liberal Association of Ontario, which was an incorporated political association; and he said that he had no doubt that there were Conservative associations in Canada which were likewise incorporated. He maintained the right of these associations, which were organized purely for political purposes, to contribute to the political cause which they supported. Now, I understand that in British Columbia there are one or two political associations that have been incorporated. Certainly the Ontario Liberal Association is an incorporated association under the law of Ontario. It is not a trading corporation; it is not an association which is out for gain or reward; it is purely an association for political purposes, for educational purposes, if you like, and as such its right to take part in elections was maintained by Sir Allan Aylesworth in these particular words which appear in elause 10. I may tell you that the Government does not care one whit whether or not these words are struck out from the third line of the clause. The clause has been taken just as it appeared in the old
law, and in my opinion the old law worked well. We have maintained the old law; we have provided for more stringently than has been suggested by any one else against improper subscriptions. We have made provision for publicity; we have tried to meet the evil intent of all persons who would try to hid or cover up their subscriptions. I do not know that any body could ask us to go very much farther. The object has been to provide an absolute safeguard. But this section deals only with corporate subscriptions. I ask the committee to pass it, and if they want the publicity clauses further improved when we come to them, let us improve them. I do not think that we should mix two subjects in one section.


John Archibald Maharg: What is the section
which deals with the publication of contributions?


Hugh Guthrie: Section 79, subsection
(e), page 61.
Mr, McMASTER:	I assure the minister
that I did not prepare this amendment without carefully reading the clause, and without devoting perhaps as much time to the clause as he did when he was preparing the Bill. I should like also to direct the attention of the committe to the fact that the publication which I ask for is publication which in many instances will occur before the election.


Hugh Guthrie: Never.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The minister shakes his head. Perhaps he did not read my amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: Fifteen days.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I quote from my proposed amendment:
The candidate, or the person acting for such candidate, or the person acting tor any political party, receiving such subscription, must acknowledge receipt of the same in writing, and within two weeks of the same being received by him, must publish the full name and address of the subscriber, and the amount subscribed by him, and 'whether the subscription is generally for the funds of any political party or for any special candidate, in the following manner.	.
The minister says that what I have endeavoured-ineffectively, according to his words-to provide is provided for in section 79 of the Bill, which, of course, I had read and which I knew about. But this is locking the stable door after the horse is stolen. It means that within two months the agent of the candidate shall publish the required particulars. I think that on the whole we cannot have too much publicity as to the



origin of campaign funds; therefore I ask. the committee to pass the amendment.


Mr. NESBITT:: Where does the amendment provide that the publication must be made before the election?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I said that in many cases it would be before the election. If the subscription was given in the last days of the fight, it would not be published before the election, but if it was given in order to start an organization six weeks or a month before an election, it would be published before the election.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend's last remarks remind me of that old adage about " if." As a matter of fact, it is pure imagination on his part that the publication would be before the election.


Levi Thomson: When I spoke before, I was desirous of bringing certain matters to the attention of the minister, and I gathered that my first suggestion at least has not been favourably received by him. I do not know that it is vital, but I thought it worthy of consideration. In view of the fact that very few of us have had an opportunity of studying the proposed amendment, I suggest that we again let the clause stand so that we may be enabled to look into it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, let us pass it.


Levi Thomson: 
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have been endeavouring for some time to catch your eye, Mr. Chairman, but the minister who has charge of this Bill got in ahead of me at my last effort. It was not my intention to say anything on this subject to-night, but I must not overlook the pressing invitation given to me a little earlier in the evening by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). He seems to speak with a certain amount of cocksureness on every occasion and upon every subject, but let me inform him that in this case he has another guess coming. Several speakers have made reference to a certain political contest that took place last fall in Saskatchewan, and I think it is only proper that I should reply in a mea. sure and somewhat endorse the very flattering remarks made by my confrere on that occasion, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who has to-night given expression to his opinion in regard to the reception accorded to him and myself at that time. I endorse most heartily the statements that he has made in that regard. We were received on that occasion in every instance in the most friendly manner, and although our advice was not taken by all we met, we were certainly given a cordial and most pleasing hearing. We have been reminded of this feature so often that I think it is only fair that we should compare notes with the response given and the results obtained in some other contests that took place at the same time.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) that if we wander into any other constituency than Assiniboia, I am sure we Shall not be able to register any progress to-night. .


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I bow, of course, to the
ruling of the Chair; but it is only fair, as this matter has been referred to so often to-night and on so many other occasions than to-night, that I should be allowed the privilege of replying in some measure to the remarks that have been made.
As regards the clause that is under discussion at the moment, the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has suggested' that it is only to be expected that I should second the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). Let

me tell that hon. gentleman that the amendment has been seconded already by another hon. member on this side of the House, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier). If I were to express my private conviction upon this subject, I would move an amendment to the amendment along this line, and I think this amendment to the amendment would find an echo in the minds of not only a number of members on this side, hut of quite a few on the Government side. I might preface the reading of the proposition I have in mind by calling attention to a statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards). He asked the -question: Do we intend to put a stop to contributions to campaign funds from any source, to stop corrupt practices? In my judgment, there is only one way to stop a thing, and that is to shut it off altogether, not to try to make an easy or partial remedy, but to treat it in a straightforward manner. The terms of my suggested amendment to the amendment would read in this manner: That contributions for political purposes, by any person, organization, incorporated or unincorporated company or association fee absolutely prohibited, and that any person, organization, incorporated or unincorporated company or association violating this provision is guilty of an indictable offence against this Act, punishable as in this Act provided.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Is the hon. member prepared to cut out corrupt practices?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If the hon. member had listened patiently to my amendment, the question he asks would have been answered; speaking personally, I have no need to answer his question; I am speaking for general application only. The amendment I have suggested represents my feelings in this matter; but I gather from the tenor of the addresses given here to-night, that the preference is for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster), and I shall have much pleasure in supporting that amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: May I be permitted to offer a thought, not with the expectation of any immediate result, but merely for the purpose of dropping a seed which, one of these days, will come to maturity? There is a solution of this question, although I believe neither the Government, nor the House, nor public opinion is prepared to adopt it at present; but I believe that in this progressive age-and I wish it to be understood that in the best sense of the word I am a Progressive-the time is not far distant when all the necessary legiti-77*
mate expenses of an election will be, as they should be, a proper charge on the treasury of the Dominion. The election of a member of Parliament is not necessarily for his personal advantage; it is not necessarily for any local advantage; it is necessary for the peace, order and good government of this Dominion, and the time is not far distant when, under proper conditions,, the treasury of Canada will bear, as it should, all legitimate expenses.- Of course, it will then be necessary to prescribe the character of the expenses and to limit the amount. But I want to offer the thought, not with the expectation of any immediate result, but in the belief that some who, like myself, are still amongst the youngsters, will live to see the day when we shall get rid of all such questions as this by making these legitimate expenses a proper charge on the Dominion treasury. Then there will be no question whether a candidate shall spend a sum large or small j every sum spent outside of the official expenditure, by an unauthorized agent, will be illegal. If this does not come about in the near future, still I think that some day it will be done.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I wish to isay a few words on the Franchise Bill. Who, Mr. Chairman, should be the last man in this House to talk franchise? Every one answers: The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). He was Premier of Nova Scotia for fourteen years, from 1882 to 1896.


William Stevens Fielding: Bad arithmetic.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Two and two make four,
don't you know that much. When my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) was Premier of Nova Scotia what was the franchise there?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member Is perfectly in order in speaking to this clause, providing he confines his remarks to its subject-matter.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I will talk to you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, I bow to your ruling. It is a strange thing that the man who was most strongly opposed to a universal franchise, and to fair treatment of the voter, . should now condemn this Government because they do not extend the franchise that he refused. If you will go back and look at the statutes of the -Nova Scotia legislature, you will find that in 1759 an Act was passed in the province of Nova Scotia that a Catholic priest was a criminal as soon as he set foot on Nova 'Scotia soil. My horn

friend was Premier of Nova Scotia for fourteen years and never repealed that Act.


Georges Henri Boivin: The clause under discussion relates only to contributions for electoral purposes.


Robert Hamilton Butts: And to the franchise.


Georges Henri Boivin: The entire Bill relates to the franchise, but we are now discussing clause 10, which deals only with contributions.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Then I will confine myself to that. Anyway, I have succeeded in placing that information before the House. When my hon. friend (Mr. fielding) came into power as Premier of Nova Scotia he knew that the Act I have referred to was in force, and he knows that he remained Premier of Nova Scotia until 1896 and never changed that law.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman desires to keep within the rules.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I do not wish to be disrespectful in any way. I wish to abide by all your decisions, Sir, because I know they are invariably correct. At the same time you will grant me the privilege of once in a while stumbling into the right track. I do not think that the expressions of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) should be allowed to go unprotested, and I feel that in this case, if I do transgress the rules a little bit, my transgression is perhaps justifiable. Why should this legislation that is sought to be put through the House be criticised by one of the greatest' transgressors of franchise law that was ever in *Canada?
Amendment (Mr. McMaster) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
'On sebtion 16-communications (by telegraph :
Samuel William Jacobs: When this clause was before the committee last week I asked that it (be allowed to stand in order that I might be able to prepare an amendment. I now move to amend clause 16 by adding as subsection (3) the following words:
Every telegraph communication referred to in "this section shall be repeated by the person receiving the message to the person transmitting fhe same, in order to insure the correctness of *the message so received.
I might say with respect to the law re-*garding telegrams that Order 162, approved
fMr. Butts]
by the Board of Railway Commissioiiers, March 30, 1916, provides:
It is agreed between the sender of the message on the face of this form and this company, that said company shall not be liable for damages arising from failure to transmit or deliver, or for any error in the transmission or delivery of any unrepeated telegram, whether happening from negligence of its servants or otherwise, or for delays from interruptions in the working of its lines, for errors in cypher or obscure messages, or for errors from illegible writing, beyond the amount received for sending the same.
It is for the purpose of insuring the correctness of the reception of the message that I propose this amendment.
Mr. GUTHRilE: I have no objection to the amendment if the committee thinks it is a necessary safeguard. It will, of course, increase the expense, unnecessarily I think, but it will not mean more than a few cents at any election.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On clause 18-office of Clerk of Crown in Chancery abolished.
Ernest Lapointe: This clause was to stand until the next clause is disposed of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend not think that we might very well adjourn at this juncture?


Hugh Guthrie: We must get through some time, and I think we are allowing to stand a lot of clauses that really are not contentious. I would have no objection to allowing the clause to stand if there were any real reason for doing so. If an amendment were offered, or if the principle of the clause were attacked, I would not mind letting it stand, but I think we should make some progress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have
passed everything up to this clause, and I think we might adjourn now.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us pass clause 18 at any rate.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 18 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. iRowell the House adjourned at eleven p.m.

Wednesday; April 14, 1920